Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

Transfer of Power (Officers on Leave)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any date prior to June, 1948, has been fixed for the transfer of power; and whether officers now on leave in England and not due to return for some weeks will be permitted to retire with compensation, without returning to India.
In asking this Question, may I explain, Mr. Speaker, that it was put down before the recent proposals for the government of India became known?

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The Indian Independence Bill provides for the transfer of power on 15th August. Officers now on leave in this country who wish to be excused the short period of service between the expiry of their leave and the transfer of power are at liberty to apply for release with compensation without returning to duty.

Sir W. Smithers: May I say that that answer will give great satisfaction?

Railway Officers (Contracts)

Sir Robert Young: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what will be the position of Indian Government railway officers who are serving under an agreement with the Secretary of State for India should they desire, or be asked, to terminate their contracts when power is handed over to a new Indian Govern-

ment; and whether any agreement arrived at will apply with equal assurance to those European officers who are now serving under an agreement with the Governor-General in Council.

Mr. A. Henderson: European officers of the Indian railway service who were appointed by the Secretary of State are covered by the compensation scheme announced by the Prime Minister on 30th April. As regards those European officers who were appointed by the Governor-General in Council, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) on 23rd June.

Indian Army Officers (Pensions)

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he is now in a position to make an announcement on the subject of the pension terms for officers of corps of the Indian Army not governed by the Royal Warrant.

Mr. A. Henderson: I assume that the hon. and gallant Member is referring to officers of the technical and specialist services of the Indian Army. I am glad to say that the Government of India have agreed to apply the 1945 Pension code to those officers in the same manner as it has been applied to combatant officers of the Indian Army. This decision also applies to the I.M.S.

Medical Service (Officer's Leave Application)

Mr. C. S. Taylor: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Lieut.-Colonel F. V. Stonham, I.M.S., applied for an extension of leave until the middle of November to enable him to sit for the F.R.C.S. examination in November; that leave has been refused; and what are the reasons for the refusal.

Mr. A. Henderson: I am aware that the leave in question was refused by the Government of India, presumably on the ground that Lieut.-Colonel Stonham's services were required in the Middle East, and the hon. Member will appreciate that an officer's private interests in such a case must give way to the needs of the Service. The position has, however, been fundamentally altered by the advancement of the date for the transfer of power, and I am asking the Government of India to


examine Lieut.-Colonel Stonham's position afresh in the light of the most recent constitutional developments. Meanwhile this officer will remain on leave.

Mr. Taylor: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his reply, and as I believe Colonel Stonham is due to return to duty tomorrow, may I telephone him today to tell him to remain on leave?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir.

Civil Servants (Pensions)

Mr. W. R. Williams: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India why persons on the India Office establishment who were transferred to the office of the High Commissioner for India under the Order in Council of 13th August, 1920, and have since retired, are not being paid by the India Office the increase of pension granted to civil servants under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1947, although the Order in Council provides that such persons should be in no worse position for purposes of superannuation than if they had remained on the establishment of the Secretary of State.

Mr. A. Henderson: The difficulty in this case arises from the fact that the Order in Council to which my hon. Friend refers provided that the persons in question should be in no worse position than if they had remained on the establishment not of the Secretary of State, but of the Secretary of State in Council, a corporate entity which ceased to exist after the 31st March, 1937. As a consequence, the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1947, does not automatically apply to them, and my noble Friend has no power to apply it without the agreement of the Government of India, whose consent has not yet been obtained. The matter is however, receiving further consideration.

Sterling Balances (Discussions)

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present amount of Indian sterling balances; and, in view of the probable postponement of Anglo-Indian discussions about them, what arrangements are made about India drawing on these balances in the immediate future.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): The most recent published figures of the Reserve Bank of India

show sterling holdings of £1,178.4 million. An official delegation is arriving in this country today for discussions about India's sterling balances. The present pre-occupation of Ministers in India in connection with the transfer of power has prevented the opening of formal negotiations. The discussions about to take place are designed to make interim arrangements for the period immediately following 15th July.

Mr. Scollan: What monetary contribution has India made towards the cost of the war?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Surely that does not arise on this Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — BURMA

British Financial Aid

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Burma what sum is now owed to Britain by the Government of Burma.

The Under-Secretary of State for Burma (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The net sum advanced by His Majesty's Government to the Government of Burma to the end of June, 1947, is approximately £41.7 million.

Army (Japanese-Trained Personnel)

Brigadier Low: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Burma whether he has approved the decision by the Defence Department of the Government of Burma to invite personnel trained in the Japanese Military Academy during the war to apply for commissions in the Burmese Army.

Mr. A. Henderson: Among the conclusions reached in the conversations between His Majesty's Government and the Burma Executive Council last January it was agreed that all Burmese forces would forthwith come under the control of the Government of Burma. In these circumstances, the decision referred to by the hon. and gallant Member does not require approval by His Majesty's Government.

Brigadier Low: But surely His Majesty's Government must be interested in the decision of the Government of Burma to


incorporate into the Burmese Army men who were trained by His Majesty's Government's late enemy?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir, but whatever decision may be taken by the Government of Burma, as we transfer power to them we must cease to retain the power to interfere.

Brigadier Low: But do His Majesty's Government approve of this or do they disapprove of this, as I am sure this House does?

Mr. Henderson: It is not my function to express opinions.

Major Legge-Bourke: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that on a question of this importance His Majesty's Government should express an opinion, and should not leave the matter in the air?

Mr. Henderson: No, Sir, not on matters which are within the competence of the particular Government.

Brigadier Low: Is there to be no such thing as Imperial Defence in future?

Oral Answers to Questions — ATOMIC ENERGY (DISCUSSIONS WITH U.S.S.R.)

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the recent discussions of the Atomic Energy Commission with the U.S.S.R.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): In accordance with the resolution of the Security Council of 10th March last, the Atomic Energy Commission have continued their attempts to reconcile existing differences of view, and to work out the details which had not been considered in the interim report submitted by them to the Security Council on 31st December, 1946. Although, as a result, a number of outstanding problems have now been discussed, little or no progress has been made in respect of the remaining points of disagreement. Nevertheless, His Majesty's Government consider that they should continue to try to widen the field over which agreement has been obtained, in the hope of resolving remaining points of difference.

Colonel Hutchison: Does this mean that the conversations between the two parties are, in fact, continuing?

Mr. Mayhew: These are not bilateral conversations. These are the discussions in the Atomic Energy Commission.

Major Bruce: In view of the importance of the question, would my hon. Friend consider publishing as a White Paper the efforts that have been made so far by His Majesty's Government to obtain agreement on this very important topic?

Mr. Mayhew: I will consider that.

Mr. Beswick: Would my hon. Friend also consider having in the Library copies of the proceedings as a report? It is very difficult to follow this matter from the very garbled reports which appear in the Press.

Mr. Mayhew: I will certainly look into that, too.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIAN FACTORIES (OWNERSHIP)

Mr. P. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made by the deputies of the Foreign Ministers in arriving at a decision about the lawful ownership of the 200 odd Austrian factories taken over by the Soviet authorities.

Mr. Mayhew: The Austrian treaty Commission has now begun a survey of the Austrian oil industry, and will also consider the position of other important assets in Austria. Progress has undoubtedly been slow, but a large volume of data has already been produced by the experts, in consultation with the Austrian Government, which will, I trust, be useful in determining the legal ownership of the assets in question.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can we be told it the legal principles of ownership that are being applied in this case, under this Question, are the same as are being applied to the question of land ownership in the British zone?

Mr. Mayhew: Land ownership in the British zone of Germany is a different question.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Can the hon. Gentleman say if the machinery is still in these factories, or if it has been taken away?

Mr. Mayhew: I could not give an exact answer without notice. I understand it is still there.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATURAL RUBBER (U.S.A. IMPORT CONTROL)

Mr. Rees-Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the embargo placed on the import of natural rubber by the U.S. Government, with its serious effects on the economy of British Malaya; and what representations he is making to the U.S. Government in this matter.

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now make representations to the U.S. Government to remove the embargo on the import of natural rubber, having regard to the unfortunate conditions which this embargo is causing in Malaya.

Mr. Mayhew: No embargo has been placed on the import of natural rubber by the United States Government. The second part of the Question, therefore, done not arise.

Mr. Rees-Williams: In view of the fact that representations have been made by the rubber interests in Malaya to the Governors in this matter, can the hon. Gentleman explain how this misunderstanding has arisen?

Mr. Mayhew: The United States Government do maintain control over the proportions of natural and synthetic rubber in any given product, and I think this has an effect upon the price of rubber in Malaya, which, as is appreciated, is very low. This effect has been pointed out to the United States Government, and it is a matter which is being discussed at the Rubber Study Group in Paris at the present moment.

Mr. Janner: Will my hon. Friend continue inquiries with regard to this? Because there does seem to be a considerable amount of anxiety about it, and if there is a difficulty in this matter it should be removed if possible.

Mr. Mayhew: I quite agree that it is a most important subject. It is being discussed, as I say, with the United States delegation to the Rubber Study Group.

Colonel Hutchison: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that an embargo is

really tantamount to a quota; and is that not in conflict with the United States' policy, which is being discussed in regard to international trade?

Mr. Mayhew: As I have already explained, there is no embargo. This is quite a different matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN SERVICE (PAY AND ALLOWANCES)

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has now received any recommendations in regard to pay and allowances to members of his Department serving in South American countries.

Mr. Mayhew: Salaries are fixed according to the grade of the officer. As regards allowances, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given on 12th March. Our touring inspectors have since sent in further recommendations for the adjustment of foreign allowances. Some have been implemented, and others are under consideration.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Is it not a fact that a report was received after a tour of inspection rather more than six months ago; and has that report been acted upon?

Mr. Mayhew: This is a continuous process. Some of the recommendations have been acted upon, but others are still under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE (FOOD EXPORTS TO BRITAIN)

Mr. Baker White: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that in articles in the French Press, and by other means, much damage is being done to Anglo-French relations by the reiterated assertion that the food shortage in France is due to the fact that England is importing large quantities of French butter, beef, wheat, eggs, sardines and other canned foods; and whether he will take action, through the appropriate Government publicity organisations, both here and in France, to refute with facts and figures this propaganda.

Mr. Mayhew: I am not aware that such statements have been made either in the


French Press or elsewhere, but if the hon. Member will let me have any evidence in his possession, I shall be glad to look into the matter further.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Private Estates (Ownership)

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many titles to ownership of land have to be surrendered in the British zone of Germany under the ordinance on land reform; what is the basis of compensation for the surrenders; on what authority these surrenders are demanded; and what effects on agricultural production are expected.

Mr. Mayhew: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sudbury (Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton) on 23rd June. As the draft ordinance is still being considered by the Zonal Advisory Council, it is not yet possible to give details of the measures to be adopted, but everything possible will be done to ensure that these do not have an adverse effect on food production.

Mr. Pickthorn: While we are waiting for details could we not be told what are the principles involved, what is the basis of compensation, and what is the authority? They are not detailed questions; they are matters of principle and authority.

Mr. Mayhew: On the question of authority, I quite agree, it might be either a Military Government ordinance or legislation passed by the respective Land Governments. On the other questions, thought they are certainly not points of detail, they are being considered by the Zonal Advisory Council.

Mr. Pickthorn: Do not His Majesty's Government see that the whole question is, where the Military Government gets its authority from to reshape the social structure of Europe?

Mr. Mayhew: It gets its authority from powers vested in the Commander-in-Chief. That is a much wider question, which has often been discussed.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: To what extent are these powers subject to Parliamentary control? Is it not right that Parliament should decide principles on the control of land?

Mr. Mayhew: No decision in this matter has been taken yet. As I explained, a draft ordinance—which is a draft—is still before the Zonal Advisory Council.

Mr. Pickthorn: Will it come before this House?

Coal Industry

Mr. Bramall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the proposal of the German Economic Administration in Minden, for the handing over of the management of the German coal industry to a publicly-controlled German control board, has been rejected.

Mr. Mayhew: Proposals, put forward early last month by the German Executive Committee for Economics for the handing over of the management of the coal industry in the combined zone to a publicly-controlled German control board, are now under active consideration by the Anglo-American authorities.

Mr. Bramall: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Press were informed by an officer of the Control Commission that this plan had been turned down—that is the plan put forward by the German economic administration.

Mr. Mayhew: My hon. Friend may be under a misapprehension. There was an earlier plan which was turned down on 5th June, I think, but this is a second plan which is now under consideration.

Mr. Bramall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has modified his policy that the German coal industry should be handed over to public ownership; and whether any plans have now been drawn up for carrying out the transfer to public ownership.

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. The question of plans for transfer is at present under consideration.

Mr. Bramall: Does the answer, "No, Sir," apply to the first part of the Question?

Mr. Mayhew: It applies to both parts of the Question.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: In the meantime, are any Germans being invited over here to study the operations of our National Coal Board at Himley Hall and other centres of activity?

Mr. Bramall: asked the Secretary of, State for Foreign Affairs whether the British authorities have accepted the proposal of the U.S. authorities that the question of transfer of ownership of coalmines in the British zone of Germany should be left in abeyance for five years.

Mr. Mayhew: The United States authorities have made a proposal to the effect that the ownership of the coal mining industry be vested in trustees for a period of five years. My right hon. Friend has also received representations from other interested Governments, all of which are under consideration.

Mr. Bramall: Will my hon. Friend draw the attention of his right hon. Friend to the fact that this House was specifically assured that our policy was to nationalise the coal industry, and that this House was repeatedly assured that the economic fusion of the British and American zones would not affect the political policy of nationalising heavy industries?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir. We have not modified our policy of national ownership, but I will certainly draw that to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can we be told on what Parliamentary consent is based the theory that the British Government can have a policy of nationalisation in Germany?

Mr. Mayhew: This decision is primarily one for the German people. [Laughter.]

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is this the precedent which might be usefully applied to the land proposals?

Mr. Mayhew: Certainly—I do not see why there is such cause for amusement on the Benches opposite. The fact is that we have never burked this question. The question of land reform and questions of socialisation are primarily matters for decision by the German people.

Passport Control Office, Berlin (Staffing)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has seen a printed circular issued by the Passport Control Officer in Berlin stating that his correspondence is overwhelming, and that it is physically impossible for him to answer all letters; and, in view of the many urgent compassionate cases with which this office has to deal, whether he

will arrange for its staff to be strengthened so that letters addressed to it may at least be acknowledged.

Mr. Mayhew: The staff of the Passport Control Office at Berlin has recently been increased, and it is hoped that it will now be sufficient to deal with current correspondence.

Mr. Keeling: Is the hon. Member aware that there have been complaints from other Members of the House that it is impossible to get an answer from this officer? It may not be his fault.

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir. I agree that there has been delay in the past, but as the staff is being increased steadily we hope the delays will now cease.

Living Accommodation (Evictions)

Commander Noble: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in how many cases British women married to Germans have been evicted from their homes in Germany to satisfy British requirements for accommodation; and what alternative accommodation is made available.

Mr. Mayhew: I regret that the information required in the first part of the Question is not available. The answer to the second part of the Question is that the German authorities are responsible for finding alternative accommodation as they are for all evicted German persons, but the British authorities give special consideration when the British birth of a woman is brought to their notice.

Krupp's Works Essen (Dismantling)

Mr. Wilson Harris: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Krupp's works at Essen are to be blown up instead of being dismantled in such a way as to conserve the large amount of steel used in its construction.

Mr. Mayhew: Some parts of the Krupp's plant are earmarked for reparations. Only those parts of the works will be destroyed which are useful for warlike purposes exclusively—that is Category I plant. Destruction will, so far as possible, be by dismantling. Blowing up will only be used as a last resort in order to complete the process by the date laid down by the Council of Foreign Ministers.

Mr. Wilson Harris: On this question of conservation of any large amounts of steel, is it not better to postpone the date and save the steel, than to keep to the date and lose the steel?

Mr. Mayhew: We are doing everything we can to save the steel. It is not only a question of getting it through by the date, but there is also the fact that sometimes it is more economic to destroy the steel by blowing it up, than to use manpower to dismantle it.

Sir W. Smithers: In view of the fact that the steel is to be used for reparations, will the Under-Secretary state to which country it will be sent?

Mr. Mayhew: That will be a matter of allocation by the Inter-Allied Reparations Agency.

Sir Arthur Salter: Is the Foreign Office satisfied that in this and other similar cases there is no unnecessary destruction or waste?

Mr. Mayhew: We will take every possible measure to prevent such waste. That is all I can say.

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: Have every possible means of turning wartime production into peacetime production been explored, such as converting tank production into tractor production? Can I have an assurance on that?

Mr. Mayhew: I can give the assurance that the only plant destroyed is that used exclusively for war purposes.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Who takes the decision whether plant is to be destroyed and used for reparations, and on what authority are Russian personnel in the Krupp's works?

Mr. Mayhew: The definitions are as laid down by the Council of Foreign Ministers.

Mr. Bramall: To what extent have German workers refused to dismantle the works upon which they are dependent for their livelihood?

Mr. Mayhew: There is a natural reluctance on the part of German workers to dismantle their own factories.

Cotton Industry

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any steps will

be taken to consult the spinning industry in this country about the plan for importing cotton into the British and U.S. zones of Germany for the use of mills in those areas.

Mr. Mayhew: The advice of the British cotton industry has already been sought and given on matters concerning the processing of cotton in the Combined zone.

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give details of the agreement by which 8,000,000 yards of cotton textiles made in Britain for the manufacture of loin cloths for East-African natives are to be supplied by the Export and Import Agency of the British and U.S. zones of Germany.

Mr. Mayhew: Private firms in this country have concluded a number of contracts with German manufacturers through the joint Export/Import Agency for the processing of raw cotton. It is understood that some of the cotton cloth thus produced will be finished in the United Kingdom and is destined for the African market.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLISH RESETTLEMENT CORPS (FAMILIES)

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many wives and children of members of the Polish Resettlement Corps are awaiting promised passages to this country from India, East Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere; and when they are likely to get them.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken to reunite men of the Polish Armed Forces with their Polish dependants from the U.S.A., Africa, India, Germany and elsewhere overseas.

Mr. Mayhew: As the answer is rather long and contains a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Members' permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Brigadier Rayner: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that in this connection we have broken yet another promise to our Polish friends; and will he do everything possible within his power to re-unite these families as soon as possible?

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir, I do not admit at all that we have broken any promise. We maintain, and have maintained, the desirability of re-uniting these families, and will do all we can to bring it about. It is a matter of transport and accommodation.

Following is the answer;

Approval has now been given for the War Office to make arrangements to bring to the United Kingdom, both from the Middle East and from India, the immediate relatives of members of the Polish Resettlement Corps who are now in this country. In addition, the wives and children under 21 of members of the Resettlement Corps will as a first step be brought here from East and Central Africa and from Southern Rhodesia.

Approximate figures of wives and children of members of the Resettlement Corps are belived to be:

India—780 wives and 1,240 children.
East Africa—5,000 wives and children.
Middle East—2,100 wives and 2,000 children.

No promises as regards passages have been made. I must emphasise that the actual movement of these persons will depend on the availability of suitable transport and accommodation here. Already, however, an advance party of 150 wives and children have set sail from Port Said. About 700 of the Polish dependants in Germany who are eligible have reached this country. The remainder will be brought here as soon as possible.

A number of Polish service men have been repatriated to the U.S.A. to rejoin their families there. Movement between the U.S.A. and the United Kingdom is subject to the normal immigration laws of the two countries. His Majesty's Government fully recognise the desirability of re-uniting Polish families, whether here or in Poland or elsewhere overseas, and are making constant efforts to this end.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (UNITED NATION'S SPECIAL COMMITTEE)

Dr. Segal: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that His Majesty's Government will not reject the Report of

the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine on the grounds of Arab non-cooperation.

Mr. Mayhew: I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. The report of the Special Committee will be submitted to the General Assembly of the United Nations and not to His Majesty's Government. I can assure him, however, that, when the report is considered by the Assembly, the attitude of His Majesty's Government will not be affected by the fact that the Palestine Arabs have not co-operated with the Committee.

Dr. Segal: Can my hon. Friend also give an assurance that the Government will insist on the complete disarming of both Jews and Arabs before we can implement any of the recommendations?

Mr. Mayhew: That is a much wider question.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Potatoes (Processing)

Commander Maitland: asked the Minister of Food what amount of potatoes, measured in tons, has been used in the manufacture of flour for bread and similar products during the month of May, 1947.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): I regret that we have no statistics on this subject. The quantity of potatoes used in this way is negligible. There is, of course, no potato in national flour.

Cattle and Sheep (Live-Weight Grading)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food what facilities are allowed to farmers, dissatisfied with the live-weight grading of their cattle and sheep, to have the value assessed on the actual dressed carcase weight.

Dr. Summerskill: A livestock inspector of the Ministry may direct that payment shall be based on the actual dressed carcase weight after slaughter, instead of on the estimate made by the certifying authority. The inspectors are authorised to use this power when a producer is dissatisfied with the certifying authority's estimate. The animals are then sent to the nearest convenient slaughterhouse, and arrangements are made to enable the


farmer to see the carcases weighed if he chooses to do so. The dead-weight basis may also be adopted at the producer's request when, because of restrictions on movement under the Diseases of Animals Acts, an animal may be moved from a collecting centre only to a slaughterhouse and, there for cannot be withdrawn from grading and taken back to the farm.

Mr. Hurd: In how many cases has the appeal procedure been used in the last year?

Dr. Summerskill: I could not say without notice.

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: Can the Parliamentary Secretary hold out any hope that this system, which is known in my county as a "guessing competition" will eventually be replaced?

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir, I certainly cannot do that. It may be deemed so in the hon. Member's part of the world, but that is not universal.

Mr. Baldwin: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this "competition" is 97 per cent. accurate?

Dr. Summerskill: Ninety-nine per cent

Milk (Gifts from Canada)

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Food whether moneys collected throughout the Dominion of Canada in boxes marked "Milk for Britain" are received in this country in dollars, or in the form of dried milk or some other processed milk; and what method he has adopted of distributing these gifts.

Dr. Summerskill: These gifts have been coming as powdered milk and chocolate milk powder, and are distributed by the women's voluntary services to children's hospitals, orphanages, and schools, and, through district nurses, to individual children. I welcome this opportunity of renewing our thanks to the Association of Kinsmen's Clubs in Canada, through whose generosity we receive this milk.

Mr. Janner: Will the Parliamentary Secretary do something to make it known publicly in Canada that these gifts have been used in this very useful way, because they are apparently not aware of the fact?

Dr. Summerskill: I think that the Kinsmen's Association are well aware of the fact.

Sir R. Young: Are importation licences required for these gifts?

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir.

Surplus Herring (Processing)

Mr. Leslie: asked the Minister of Food whether agreement has yet been reached with the East Coast fishermen to accept the offer of 30s. per cran for surplus herring to be processed into margarine, so as to prevent dumping into the sea of surplus herring.

Dr. Summerskill: The Scottish Herring Producers' Association, representing the majority of the East Coast fishermen, has not formally accepted the offer to buy surplus herring for reduction at 30s. per cran; but a number of fishermen at Fraserburgh and Peterhead sold their surpluses at this price at the beginning of the season, and we are hopeful that in the future they and other fishermen will be willing to do so and thus realise the value of the surpluses both to themselves and the country

Mr. Leslie: In the event of dumping being continued by these fishermen, will the Ministry consider prosecuting them for the deliberate destruction of food?

Dr. Summerskill: We are considering this matter very carefully.

Subsidies

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Minister of Food the total amount of food subsidies now being paid at the last convenient, date.

Dr. Summerskill: The best estimate we can make at present is that given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech, £392 million for 1947–48.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: While congratulating the hon. Lady on at least being sartorially Conservative, may I ask her by what amount this could be reduced if her Department abandoned the idea of bulk buying?

Dr. Summerskill: That is a hypothetical question.

U.S.A. Canned Fish (Imports)

Miss Colman: asked the Minister of Food if he will give the total value in dollars of tinned fish and oysters imported


from the U.S.A. during the last six months; and the reason for permitting these goods to be imported.

Dr. Summerskill: The total value of imports of canned fish from the U.S.A. during the six months ended 30th June, 1947, was about 21 million dollars, including about 240,000 dollars for canned oysters. Almost all of these imports were Ministry purchases of salmon and pilchards, intended for distribution under points rationing. The oysters were part of the private importations permitted under an open general licence for canned fish products which is no longer in force.

Mr. Beswick: Can the Minister say whether it is intended to allow any further importations of this canned fish?

Dr. Summerskill: As I have pointed out, the open general licence is no longer in force.

Oral Answers to Questions — BEER (IMPORTS)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Food (1) how much beer from European countries has been licensed for import in the last year;
(2) what answer has been given to the application made to import beer into the United Kingdom from Germany;
(3) the quantity of beer permitted to be imported in the next 12 months; and the countries from which those imports will come.

Dr. Summerskill: Between 21st May, when the import scheme began, and 2nd July, import licences have been issued for 41,200 bulk barrels of 36 gallons each, including 4,000 barrels for re-export as ships' stores. This beer will come from Holland, Denmark, and Czechoslovakia. Further applications have been received or are anticipated covering 38,000 bulk barrels from these three countries in 1947 and 6,000 bulk barrels from Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and Germany. No answer has yet been given to the German application, involving only 28 barrels, as we are waiting for information on the supplies available and the method of payment.

Major Legge-Bourke: Can the hon. Lady give an assurance that no licences will be granted for the import of beer made from grain which has been exported

or diverted to those countries at the expense of British farmers who required feedingstuffs?

Dr. Summerskill: No, I cannot give that assurance. It is a matter for the country concerned. The International Emergency Food Council allocates grain, and the country which receives it can do what it likes with the allocation.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is not the hon. Lady aware that something like 454,000 barrels of foreign beer were imported last year? Can she assure us that none of that was made from grain which was diverted to Germany?

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the hon. Lady aware that as a result of two years of Socialist Government we have been compelled to import both coal and beer?

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING INDUSTRY

Inshore Fishing Vessels (Construction)

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, how many inshore fishing vessels have been built under the terms of the Inshore Fishing Industry Act, 1945.

The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Thomas Williams): Thirty-seven inshore fishing boats have been built in Great Britain under the terms of the Inshore Fishing Industry Act, 1945. Additional contracts have been placed for 97 boats, and 14 more are being negotiated.

Herring (Abnormal Catches)

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is satisfied that the Herring Industry Board has made adequate arrangements to deal with abnormal catches of herring during the East Anglian fishing season.

Mr. T. Williams: While the maximum quantity of herrings likely to be landed on any day during the East Anglian herring season is unpredictable, every effort is being made by the Herring Industry Board and the Departments concerned to ensure that all herrings landed will be utilised.

Mr. Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the chaotic state of affairs which prevailed in East Anglia last year, owing to the inability of the Herring Board to


deal with this matter? Can he assure us that that state of affairs will not recur?

Mr. Williams: I can only assure my hon. Friend that the Ministry of Food have started a campaign to eat more fish, including herrings, and are endeavouring to secure increased kipper factory accommodation and an improvement in the kippers.

Air-Commodore Harvey: if there should be a glut this autumn, will the Minister consider sending the fishing vessels direct to Holland and Germany, to discharge their catches at the ports there?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Credit Facilities

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps the Government propose to take to ensure that the small dairy farmers and mixed farms throughout the country have adequate working capital to enable them to produce the maximum amount of milk and food.

Mr. T. Williams: I am satisfied that almost all farmers can secure, either from their own resources or from existing credit facilities, sufficient working capital, and I do not propose to make any further arrangements.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 80 per cent. of the farms of this country are of 150 acres or less, that most of them are short of working capital and have to rely on bank overdrafts at 5 per cent.? Is ne further aware that the banks pay only half per cent. on deposit accounts, which is 10 times the amount they charge the farmers?

Mr. Williams: I do not accept a single figure which the hon. Member has given.

Mr. De la Bère: That is too much for any mortal to put up with.

Mr. Tiffany: If the situation is as has just been described, would not a solution be to form a credit association for the farmers?

Mr. Williams: I am certain that the situation is not as the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère) suggested, and, that being so, there is no necessity to provide facilities other than those which already exist.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will take steps to make use of the existing 7,000 branches of the joint stock banks, with a view to the formation of an agricultural farm credit bureau restricted under its constitution from charging more than 1 per cent. above the current bank rate on all its transactions.

Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if we are to develop food production farmers must have the proper working capital? I am not satisfied, even following the rebuke which the right hon. Gentleman has just given me, and I shall go on again and again. I know I am right.

Mr. Dye: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is his intention to reduce the rate of interest from 5 per cent. to 2½per cent. on other credits under the Goods and Services Scheme in addition to the advances to hill farmers as announced on 20th June.

Mr. T. Williams: The reduction in the rate of interest is not restricted to hill farmers; it applies to any farmer to whom assistance under the scheme is given for the replacement - of livestock lost last winter through snow, frost, or flood. I do not propose to extend the concession to farmers who have not suffered in that way.

Mr. Dye: Do I understand that there will be two rates of interest which farmers will be able to obtain under one scheme? Do I understand that for livestock only it is 2½per cent., but that if a farmer's crops suffer, as they are suffering in the Eastern Counties at present because of the drought and the barley plague, he will not be able to get the credit at 2½per cent.?

Mr. Williams: Past experience of the Agricultural Goods and Services Scheme indicates that anything less than 5 per cent. would not cover the necessary overhead expenses. Therefore, it would amount to an indirect subsidy, and it is not the intention that that should be the case.

Mr. De la Bère: Very unsatisfactory.

Dairy Cows (Overstocking)

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is satisfied that everything possible is being done to put a stop to the cruel practice of over-stocking dairy cows prior to sales; and if he will consider, in co-operation with the cattle-breeding societies, a tightening - up of the regulations.

Mr. T. Williams: I deprecate the practice of exhibiting over-stocked cows at markets, and my Department has always endeavoured to dissuade owners of animals from doing so. I have no power to make regulations, but it is an offence against the Protection of Animals Acts to cause unnecessary suffering to an animal and my veterinary officers are always ready to assist the police where cruelty is alleged to be due to over-stocking. I was glad to note that at a recent sale at Reading the organisers required cows in milk to be milked out at six o'clock on the morning of the sale, and I hope that requirements of this kind will become more general.

Brigadier Rayner: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the great majority of farmers in South Devon and other parts of England also deprecate the practice, and will he not tighten up the regulations so that action can be taken against the minority?

Mr. Williams: I have no power to make regulations, and the question of cruelty is a matter for the police and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Paget: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this practice is quite notorious all over England? Cannot he instruct his officers to bring prosecutions? They are entitled to do so.

Mr. Williams: No, Sir, not unless their intention is drawn to a particular case by the police. It is a question for the police and for the Home Secretary, not for the Minister of Agriculture.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider asking owners of sale yards to put into their catalogues the time at which cows can be milked before sale?

Mr. Williams: I hope that those responsible for sales will take note of the hon. and gallant Member's question.

Baling Wire (Allocations)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture the quantity of baling wire allocated through the county A.E.Cs. during the current quarter as compared with a year ago; the prospective allocation for the fourth quarter of this year; and how far the quantity for the year will fall short of requirements.

Mr. T. Williams: Two thousand and ninety-one tons of baling wire were allocated for the current quarter as compared with 2,470 tons a year ago. It is not yet possible to say what the allocation for the fourth quarter will be or, therefore, how far the year's supply may fall short of requirements. But I am hoping that the steps taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply will result in improved supplies.

Wages and Prices

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will consult with the Agricultural Wages Board to ensure that, in future, proposals for changes in minimum farm wages will coincide with the year for which farmers' prices are guaranteed, so as to avoid repeated negotiations on prices and continual uncertainty.

Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir. The Agricultural Wages Board, which is, of course, fully aware of the consideration referred to by the hon. Member, is an autonomous body in whose decisions I have no power to intervene.

Mr. Hurd: Would it not be very helpful from every point of view if the Minister were to take a little courage in this matter and have a word with the Agricultural Wages Board, because the whole of his price-fixing procedure will be upset if we go on in this piecemeal way?

Mr. Williams: I fully appreciate the point submitted by the hon. Member, but I am sure that he is aware that I have no power to intervene with the Board, which is an independent one.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: In view of the recent announcement made by the. Agricultural Wages Board, recommending an increase in the minimum wage, does the Minister intend to hold a special review of prices, owing to the increased cost of production occasioned thereby?

Mr. Williams: That is a matter for subsequent consideration No increase is yet confirmed.

Captain Crookshank: it the right hon. Gentleman cannot intervene technically cannot he give a broad hint?

Mr. Williams: If a Minister were to give broad hints one way, he would have to give broad hints in another way, and I cannot give broad hints either way.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Has the Minister no ideas on this subject at all? In view of the great effect which this increase must have on the whole of the agricultural industry, has he no ideas on the subject?

Mr. Williams: I am very full of ideas on the subject.

Grass Seed (Production)

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the recent notice issued by his Press department that there is danger of over-production of some kinds of grass seed, he will state what is his policy in regard to this branch of agriculture; and if he will consider the possibility of exporting any surplus.

Mr. T. Williams: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for the South-Western Division of Norfolk (Mr. Dye) on 10th March last about cocksfoot seed. The same applies to other types. I am always glad to encourage the export of seeds which are surplus to domestic requirements.

Hill Sheep (Losses)

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Agriculture what losses of ewes and lambs have occurred in hill flocks since lambing; and how these losses of ewes compare with the earlier losses due directly to the hard weather.

Mr. T. Wiliams: I regret that this information is not yet available. I am awaiting the results of the 4th June agricultural census, which should give a complete picture of the losses of sheep and lambs.

Mr. Vane: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect that these figures will show the losses divided between those directly due to the snow and those indirectly due to lambing when the ewes were in a weak state?

Mr. Williams: They would not in the ordinary way be separated, but a special analysis is being made on those lines this year.

Imported New Carrots (Orders)

Sir William Darling: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the Import of New Carrots (with Foliage attached) Order has caused inconvenience; whether he has decided to adhere to the instructions that the length of foliage attached to new carrots may not be more than five inches, 12.5 cms., nor less than three inches, 7·5 cms.; and if he is prepared to receive representations from the public and the trade.

Mr. T. Williams: I have been asked to reply. The arrangement applied to this season's carrots only and terminated on 31st May.

Sir W. Darling: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the same termination applies to the other seven Orders on carrots, which I hold in my hand, or only to this particular Order?

Mr. Williams: I cannot answer that question without notice.

Sir W. Darling: There are only 11 Orders in all, and I am holding seven of them.

Mr. Williams: The non. Gentleman says that he is holding seven Orders in his hand, but I do not know to what the Orders relate.

Sir W. Darling: The Orders are—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must know that the right hon Gentleman can only answer a question.

Sir W. Darling: Can I see the Minister privately?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to transmit documents to a Minister privately.

RIVER POLLUTION

Mr. Stanley Prescott: asked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been directed to the recent report of the British Field Sports Society, a copy of which has been sent to him, concerning pollution of rivers; and what steps his Department will take to remedy this position.

Mr. T. Williams: Yes, Sir. The question of pollution is under consideration by a sub-committee of the Central Advisory Water Committee set up by the Minister of Health, on which agricultural and fishery interests are represented. The subcommittee has received evidence from the National Association of Fishery Boards, and other bodies interested in the purity of our rivers, and its report is awaited.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Pilotage Order (Applicants)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Transport why, by paragraph 9 of S.R. & O., 1947, No. 1148, he has made it obligatory for applicants for a pilotage order to send a copy of the ad vertisement of their application to the Transport and General Workers' Union.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): The Rules set out in the Order referred to are framed to provide that proposed changes in pilotage administration are brought to the notice of all interested parties, and, as a number of pilots now belong to the Transport and General Workers' Union, it is appropriate that that body should be included as well as the United Kingdom Pilots' Association.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the same privileges be granted to any other trade union who ask for them?

Mr. Barnes: Certainly, if they have a substantial number of members in their organisation.

River Severn Navigation (Inquiry)

Mr. Parkin: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the River Severn Catchment Board cannot proceed with urgently needed plans to combat flooding and erosion of the river banks until they know what action is to be ken on the proposals of the Severn Commission for improving navigation between Gloucester and Worcester; and whether he will hasten a decision on principle on these proposals and indicate when a statement may be expected.

Mr. Barnes: Investigations into the physical possibilities of improving the navigation of the River Severn have been completed. A special inquiry on behalf of my Ministry with the co-operation of

Bristol University into the economic aspects of the alternative schemes reported on by the engineers is likely to be completed this year. This is a necessary preliminary step. My Department is, however, prepared to advise on how far any proposed works of the Catchment Board might be rendered abortive through possible improvements to the navigation.

Ferry Services (Report)

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Minister of Transport when he anticipates that the Report of the Committee on Ferry Services will be published.

Mr. Willis: asked the Minister of Transport if he has yet received a report from the Committee on Ferry Services in Great Britain.

Mr. Barnes: I hope to receive the Committee's Report by the end of September; until then I am not in position to say anything about its publication.

Oral Answers to Questions — L.P.T.B.

Staggred Hours

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Minister of Transport what progress has now been made for the staggering of hours in London.

Mr. Barnes: Up to the present 30,000 workers in Central London have adjusted their working hours with good results. Negotiations are still proceeding which, I trust, will result in bringing in a much larger number.

Mr. Brown: Can the Minister give an idea what percentage of the total number of workers is affected by that figure of 30,000?

Mr. Barnes: No, I cannot give the percentage because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we cover this problem in districts.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: How does one stagger an hour?

Bus Services (Season Tickets)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport in order to save time, money, labour and material, if he will arrange for season tickets on the London omnibuses.

Mr. Barnes: No, Sir. I am advised that the introduction of season tickets on their omnibuses would not, on balance, result in savings to the London Passenger Transport Board. The work of conductors would be greatly complicated. There would thus be no justification for rates representing a reduction in ordinary fares, without which there would be little advantage to the public. It would be extremely difficult to frame schedules of rates to cover the numerous routes and possible journeys.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this would be of great convenience to the humble persons who use buses, and what practical objection can there be to saving time, paper and labour in this way?

Mr. Barnes: If the hon. and learned Member will look at the answer, I think that he will see that I have dealt with that point.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Was it not the case that before the war season tickets were issued on the London Transport system for workers who had to make part of their journey by bus and part by tube, and cannot that facility be restored?

Mr. Barnes: It the hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring to the T.O.T. pass, that is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Lyttelton Road, Finchley (Safety Measures)

Captain John Crowder: asked the Minister of Transport what steps have been taken to make Lyttelton Road, Finchley, safer for pedestrians crossing the road and particularly for children who have to cross it on their way to and from school.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. G. R. Strauss): As soon as the necessary labour can be made available minor improvement works will be carried out at the Norrice Lea road junction and central refuges will be provided to give pedestrians a better and safer opportunity of crossing the road. The sequence of signals at Bishop's Avenue is also being examined, to see whether improved conditions can be obtained at that junction.

Captain Crowder: Is the Minister aware that I am still receiving letters from my constituents pointing out the dangers of this road, especially for children, and can he expedite an improvement?

Mr. Strauss: I appreciate that it is a dangerous road, and the improvements of which I spoke have been given the highest priority.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are some hon. Members of this House who reside in that locality, whose lives are equally important?

Trunk Roads (Report)

Lieut. - Commander Hutchison: asked the Minister of Transport if he will issue a progress report showing developments undertaken to improve the national road system since the passing of the Trunk Roads Act, 1946.

Mr. Barnes: Information as to developments since the passing of the Trunk Roads Act, 1946, will be included in the Report on the administration of the Road Fund for 1946–7 and each year thereafter.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: When may the report be expected?

Mr. Barnes: I should think soon after the end of the year.

Reconditioned Motor Cars Ex-Service Men)

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to reduce the average period of more than a year which elapses between applications by disabled ex-Service men for reconditioned motor cars and delivery.

Mr. Barnes: The waiting period depends upon the rate of supply of surplus Government cars suitable for reconditioning and the number of disabled ex-Service men on the waiting list. Every effort is made by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Supply, to select suitable vehicles as soon as they are thrown up by Government Departments as surplus and my Department allocates the cars immediately they become available.

Mr. Greenwood: As the possession of a car is most essential to a great many of these disabled ex-Service men, has my right hon. Friend satisfied himself that


the Service Departments are disposing of these cars as quickly as they should?

Mr. Barnes: I can assure my hon. Friend that I have been very persistent in the examination of this problem, and I regret there have not been more cars available.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Minister of Transport how many reconditioned ex-Service motor cars have been allocated to disabled ex-Service men since the scheme began; and what was the average price charged.

Mr. Barnes: Since August, 1945, when applications were first invited from disabled ex-Service men, about 2,800 reconditioned ex-Government cars have been allocated to such men. The prices of these cars to the users vary according to the make, model and age and are governed by agreements between the Ministry of Supply and the manufacturers. It is not possible to state the average price paid by disabled ex-Service men.

Lighting Schemes

Mr. Sidney Marshall: asked the Minister of Transport what progress is being made with the provision of standard forms of lighting on main and trunk roads.

Mr. Barnes: Comparatively few schemes are proceeding, and while I am prepared to consider applications for grant towards schemes on trunk roads and for authorisation on other roads, it must be understood that in the conditions now obtaining as to labour, materials and fuel, approval can be given only where I am satisfied that new or extended street lighting is essential for the safety of traffic.

Mr. Marshall: Does the Minister consider that, in spite of the fact that it may not be possible to have all the materials necessary, some settled form might be agreed upon and the necessary convenience provided whilst awaiting the materials.

Mr. Barnes: I am afraid the question of labour and materials is a problem of substance with regard to these schemes.

Forth Road Bridge Scheme

Sir W. Darling: asked the Minister of Transport when tenders are to be invited for the construction of the Forth Road Bridge.

Mr. Barnes: This is a matter primarily for the Forth Bridge Committee. To avoid misunderstanding, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement I made to the House on 6th May, 1946

Sir W. Darling: Further to that statement, do I take it from the Minister that, this being a matter for the Forth Bridge Committee, they would have his approval in asking for tenders?

Mr. Barnes: I do not request the hon. Gentleman to assume anything, but if he looks at my statement of 6th May he may get some light and guidance.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Passenger Train Mileage

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Minister of Transport by what percent age passenger train miles have been reduced since 1st January, 1947; and whether this reduction is primarily due to lack of fuel or shortage of manpower.

Mr. Barnes: From 1st January to 14th June the average weekly reduction in passenger train mileage, as compared with November to December, 1946, was 8.9 per cent. The reduction was made in order to save fuel.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if this reduction of train miles has seriously affected the public, and whether it was included in the party programme, "Let Us Face The Future"?

Mr. Barnes: I agree that this cut in passenger services does represent considerable inconvenience to the public. With regard to the last part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question, I think that the results of our full policy for transport, when developed, will justify our programme.

Creosoting Plant

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Transport to what extent surplus capacity at the railway creosoting plants could


be utilised for the impregnation of electricity and telephone poles; and to what extent it is being used.

Mr. Barnes: I am informed that the creosoting plants owned by the railways are already fully occupied with the treatment of sleepers, crossing timbers, telegraph poles, cable boxes and other components, all for railway use. In some cases the creosoting of telegraph poles and cable boxes has had to be put out to contract.

Liverpool—Birmingham Service

Mr. Keenan: asked the Minister of Transport if he will consider the restoration of the 10.25 a.m. train from Lime Street, Liverpool, to Birmingham, as passengers who formerly depended on that train have now to travel by the 10 a.m. or 2.15 p.m. Liverpool-to-London trains and change at Crewe, as overcrowding on the Liverpool-to-London trains frequently means passengers have to wait for the following trains to complete their journey.

Mr. Barnes: A through train leaves Lime Street at 11.40 a.m. and is due at Birmingham at 2.49 p.m. I am informed that the railway company has no evidence that passengers from Liverpool have been unable to board a Birmingham train at Crewe since the cancellation of the 10.25 a.m. train.

Mr. Keenan: Will the Minister of Transport go into this matter carefully, because I had experience of this train both last Monday and today? Last Monday a large number of passengers were left, and it is estimated that because of this changed position between 200 and 300 passengers could not get on to the 10 o'clock train from Liverpool and were unable to travel.

Mr. Barnes: If my hon. Friend sends me any particulars which he has I will certainly examine them. Sometimes we can deal with these problems better than by question and answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Small Farming Tools

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Supply what steps he has taken to ensure that the present shortage of small farming tools is relieved in time for the corn harvest.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Leonard): Supplies are limited by the lack of skilled labour in the industry and by the shortage of steel and suitable timber and these tools are difficult to obtain abroad. The trade is, however, making every effort to import both tools, timber and finished handles.

Mr. Collins: Can my hon Friend say whether these tools, of which there is still an acute shortage, will be available in far greater supplies than at present in four to six weeks' time, when then will be badly needed?

Mr. Leonard: Every endeavour is being made to see that production meets the demand at the point my hon. Friend is concerned about.

Royal Ordnance Factory Nottingham

Mr. Norman Smith: asked the Minister of Supply what is the actual personnel at the royal ordnance factory, Nottingham; what was the maximum personnel during the late war; and what is the optimum personnel having regard to plant and machinery available at the factory.

Mr. Leonard: The numbers are 2,520 on day shift, 6,580 on two shifts and 3,000 on day shift, respectively.

Mr. Norman Smith: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that there is unrest at the royal ordnance factory, Nottingham, because some men get the incentive bonus and others engaged on comparable work do not get it; and what action does he propose to take in the matter.

Mr. Leonard: My hon. Friend probably has in mind the associated bonus payable to certain employees. This bonus is payable only to men employed in certain trades working in association with men employed on piece work. Any revision of these arrangements would be a matter for negotiation with the trade unions concerned.

Mr. Smith: How can my hon. friend justify a scheme in which the bonus is withheld from labourers who take materials from outside the factory into store, and is paid to the labourers who take the same materials from the store to the bench or machine? Is he aware that this is causing discontent and does he not


realise that trade union machinery is not always necessarily functioning to perfection?

Mr. Leonard: The position will be contained in the reply which my hon. Friend will receive from my right hon. Friend the Minister in answer to a letter already received from him.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Argentine Embassy, London (Repair Work)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Works how many man-hours have lately been spent in structural or decorative work at the Argentine Embassy, London; whether a licence was issued for this work, and for what sum; and for what purpose the work was undertaken.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): No licence has been granted for work at the Argentine Embassy, 9, Wilton Crescent, S.W.I, since October, 1946, when a licence for £112 was issued for essential decorations and minor repairs to four rooms. This work was completed in 1946.

Mr. Driberg: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any other work has been done more recently without the issue of a licence?

Mr. Key: To my mind nothing of the kind has taken place.

Theatre Royal, Edinburgh (Repair Licence)

Mr. Willis: asked the Minister of Works how much timber and other materials in short supply will be used in the work covered by the £22,000 licence granted to Edinburgh Varieties, Limited, in respect of the Edinburgh Theatre Royal.

Mr. Key: The Edinburgh Town Council have refused their consent under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts to the reinstatement and reconstruction of the Theatre Royal and the licence has, therefore, been withdrawn.

Mr. Willis: Will my right hon. Friend see that in future there is rather more cooperation between his Department and the local authority in cases like this?

Mr. Key: There is the greatest cooperation and consultation taking place.

ECONOMIC PLANNING BOARD (FUNCTIONS AND MEMBERSHIP)

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I propose to make a statement about the functions and membership of the Economic Planning Board. The primary task of this body will be to advise His Majesty's Government on the best use of our economic resources, both for the realisation of a long-term plan and for remedial measures against our immediate difficulties.
The Chairman of the Board is Sir Edwin Plowden, the Chief Planning Officer, although I may on occasion take the chair myself. The other members are:

Sir William Coates—Nominated by the Federation of British Industries and the British Employers Confederation.
Sir Graham Cunningham—Nominated by the F.B.I.-B.E.C.
Mr A. Naesmith—Nominated by the Trades Union Congress.
Mr. W. R. Verdon Smith—Nominated by the F.B.I.-B.E.C.
Mr. J. Tanner—Nominated by the T.U.C.
Mr. H. V. Tewson—Nominated by the T.U.C.
Sir John Woods—Permanent Secretary to the Board of Trade.
Sir Godfrey Ince—Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service.
Sir Archibald Rowlands—Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Supply.
Mr. A. S. Le Maitre—Central Economic Planning Staff.
Mr. H. T. Weeks—Central Economic Planning Staff.
Mr F. W. Smith—Central Economic Planning Staff.
Mr. R. L. Hall—Director of the Economic Section, Cabinet Office.
The industrial members of the Board, representing as they do both employers and workers, bring to the problems of planning wide practical experience and knowledge, while the Permanent Secretaries represent the three Departments chiefly responsible for dealing with problems of trade and industry. Very close co-operation and consultation between Government and industry will, therefore, be possible. These arrangements are, of course, in addition to and not instead of the arrangements for close consultation already maintained between industry and individual Departments. There may, however, be matters lying outside the field of experience of the industrial members on which other interested organisations


will have a contribution to make, and it may be appropriate at a later date to hold conferences on particular economic questions with the organisations best able to advise and assist us in such cases.

Mr. Mikardo: Would my right hon. Friend take into consideration obtaining the advice in appropriate cases of those trade unions which represent managerial, technical, supervisory and scientific workers?

Mr. Morrison: That, of course, is a matter for the T.U.C. in selecting their representatives, but it is possible that in specific cases affecting particular industries it may be possible for us to keep that aspect particularly in mind.

Sir Patrick Hannon: Is the Lord President of the Council satisfied that the Board includes adequate representation of the smaller manufacturers in this country, and why does not the Economic Advisory Council include a representative of the National Union of Manufacturers?

Mr. Morrison: That matter was very carefully considered. We are very anxious, as I am sure the House will agree is wise, to keep the Board to a reasonably small size, and it was felt that it would be rather difficult to go outside the Federation of British Industries and the British Employers Confederation, who represent the main stream of economic interests on the employers' side. I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member, but the trouble was that if we went that far, we should have to go farther. For example, there is a great deal to be said for the specific representation of agriculture as such, and I do not know where we would have stopped. As a matter of fact, we shall seek on proper occasions to consult agriculture specifically, and I hope that from time to time it will be possible for my representatives to meet the National Union of Manufacturers and other bodies who may be specially concerned with particular problems.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Does the Minister think that this body will also deal with the recruitment and training of manpower at the higher scientific and technologic level?

Mr. Morrison: I think not. That will best be dealt with by the appropriate Department.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Does the Board begin operations at once, and is it likely that any report by the Board will be made to Parliament?

Mr. Morrison: On the first point, now that the Board has been constituted the sooner it starts work the better so far as I am concerned, and virtually the answer to the hon. Member's question is "yes." With regard to the hon. Gentleman's second point, it is not proposed that the Board should report directly to Parliament.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: How far are members of the Cabinet to become subordinate to these distinguished personages?

Mr. Morrison: That is a poor sort of question, and I should have thought that as a good constitutionalist the noble Lord would know that Members of the Cabinet are responsible to Parliament.

Mr. Frederick Lee: Will the terms of reference include the ability to co-opt special industries which are under discussion if they are not already represented on the Board?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. If the problems of particular industries are under consideration, as my hon. Friend says, it would be competent for the Board to bring the representatives of both sides of those industries into consultation.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Will the Minister indicate whether the Board will issue periodical reports, and also whether it is intended that the Board shall be responsible for giving effect to its recommendations or advice?

Mr. Morrison: As was made clear at the time by my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade or my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—I forget which—the functions of the Board are, to take part in the shaping of the planning schemes and to advise the Government. The Board is not finally responsible; the Government must be finally responsible.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what is the actual official link between this distinguished Board and the Scottish Office?

Mr. Morrison: So far as specifically Scottish questions are concerned, the links will be the Secretary of State for Scotland and the appropriate economic Minister

Mr. Thomas Macpherson: Having regard to the fact that agriculture is one of the greatest industries of this country, and in view of its increasing importance in our economic life, does not my right hon. Friend think that there should be some specific representation of agriculture on this Board?

Mr. Morrison: I have informed the House that we shall certainly keep agriculture—which is of very great importance economically—in mind, but that if we were to proceed to the representation of specific industries, then the Board would be too large and I am afraid that we cannot go beyond the general broad constitution of the Board.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Will the independent Members of the Board receive any remuneration?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. Whether question of expenses will arise later I do not know, but there is no question of salaries.

Mr. James Hudson: Since a great deal of the industry of the country is in the hands of the Co-operative movement, will the Minister say whether any consideration has been given to the representation of that body?

Mr. Morrison: I really do not think that we could go beyond the general

set-up of the Board without getting very far. It may be that the Co-operative movement can be taken into account on these wider considerations to which I have drawn attention, but I do not think that we can arrange for its specific representation on the Board.

PRIVILEGE

Mr. Pickthorn: Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully inquire whether you are now ready to give your ruling on the question whether the extreme urgency rule applies to reports of the Committee of Privileges as well as to actual cases of Privilege?

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to say that I am not yet in a position to give a definite Ruling on that matter. I have been looking into it over the week-end, but there are complications. I should prefer to wait a little bit, until I can give a considered opinion, which I hope will be fairly soon, rather than to give a somewhat hurried statement now. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait, and if I notify him that I am ready perhaps he will ask his question again.

Mr. Pickthorn: Thank you, Sir.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put.
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting.

from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

The House divided. Ayes. 208; Noes, 94.

Division No. 296.]
AYES.
[3.41 p.m.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Pearson, A


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Gordon-Walker, P. C
Peart, T. F


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A (Wakefield)
Piratin, P.


Attewell, H. C.
Greenwood, A.W.J. (Hey wood)
Popplewell, E


Austin, H. Lewis
Grenfell, D R
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Ayles, W. H.
Grierson, E
Pritt, D. N.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Gunter, R. J
Randall, H. E


Balfour, A
Guy, W. H
Ranger, J


Barstow, P. G
Haire, John E (Wycombe)
Rankin, J


Barton, C.
Hale, Leslie
Rees-Williams, D. R


Battley, J. R.
Hall, W. G
Reeves, J.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Benson, G.
Hardy, E A
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Beswick, F.
Harris, H Wilson
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Bing, G. H. C
Harrison, J.
Roberts, W (Cumberland, N.)


Blackburn, A. R
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Blenkinsop, A
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Scollan, T


Blyton, W. R.
Herbison, Miss M
Segal, Dr. S


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hicks, G
Shackleton. E A A


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (I [...] Exch'ge)
Hobson, C. R
Sharp, Granville


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Holman, P
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Bramall, E. A.
House, G
Skeffington, A M.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hoy, J.
Skeffington-Lodge, T C


Brown, T. J (Ince)
Hubbard, T
Skinnard, F W.


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Bruce, Maj D. W. T
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Snow, Capt. J. W


Buchanan, G.
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton W)
Sorensen, R. W


Burden, T. W
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Steele, T.


Burke, W. A
Irving, W J
Stephen, C


Butler, H W. (Hackney, S.)
Janner, B
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Callaghan, James
Jay, D P T
Stubbs, A. E


Carson, E.
Jeger, G (Winchester)
Summerskill, Dr Edith


Chamberlain, R. A
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Swingler, S.


Champion, A. J
Jones, P Asterley (Hitchin)
Symonds, A. L.


Chetwynd, G. R
Keenan, W
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Cluse, W S
Kinley, J
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cocks, F S
Kirby, B. V
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Collick, P
Lang, G.
Thomas, D. E.(Aberdare)


Collindridge,
Lawson, Rt. Hon J J
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Collins, V. J.
Lee, F (Hulme)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Colman, Miss G. M
Leonard, W.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Comyns, Dr. L.
Levy, B. W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Corbet, Mrs. F K (Camo well N W)
Lewis, A. W. J (Upton)
Tiffany, S


Cove, W. G.
Lindsay, K. M (Comb'd Ens Univ.)
Turner-Samuels, M


Crossman, R. H S
McAdam, W
Ungoed-Thomas, L


Daggar, G
McAllister, G
Vernon, Maj. W F


Daines, P.
McEntee, V La T
Wadsworth, G


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
McGhee, H. G.
Walker, G. H


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Mack, J. D
Wallace, G. D. (Chistehurst)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow. E.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Davies, Hadyn (St Pancras. S W)
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Deer, G.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Diamond, J
Mallalieu, J. P. W
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J


Dodds, N N
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.)


Driberg, T E. N
Manning, Mrs L (Epping)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W


Dugdale, J (W. Bromwich)
Mathers, G
Wigg, Col G E


Dumpleton, C W
Mellish, R. J
Wilkins, W. A.


Durbin, E F. M
Mikardo, Ian
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Dye, S.
Mitchison, G. R
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Edelman, M.
Monslow, W
Williams, J. L (Kelvingrove)


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Moody, A. S.
Williams, Rt. Hon T. (Don Valley)


Evans, E (Lowestoft)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Williams, W R (Heston)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Morrison, Rt. Hon H (Lewisham, E.)
Willis, E.


Field, Capt. W J
Moyle, A
Wyatt, W.


Fletcher, E. G M. (Islington, E.)
Nally, W
Yates, V. F.


Foot, M. M
Nicholls, H R (Stratford)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Orbach, M.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Parker, J



Gilzean, A
Parkin, B. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Simmons and Mr. Hannan.




NOES.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P


Baldwin, A. E
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nutting, Anthony


Baxter, A. B.
Hope, Lord J.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Pickthorn, K.


Birch, Nigel
Hurd, A.
Prescott, Stanley


Bossom, A. C.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Ropner, Col. L.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Keeling, E. H.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Channon, H.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Smithers, Sir W.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lindsay, M (Solihull)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O. E.
Low, Brig. A. R. W
Studholme, H. G.


Crowder, Capt. John E
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Darling, Sir W. Y
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


De la Bère, R,
Macdonald, Sir P. (I of Wight)
Teeling, William


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V G. (Penrith)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Drewe, C
Maitland, Comdr, J. W.
Thorp, Lt.-Col R. A. F


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Marsden, Capt. A.
Touche, G. C.


Eccles, D. M.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Turton, R. H.


Eden, Rt. Hon A
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Vane, W. M. F


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Medlicott, F.
Walker-Smith, D.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Mellor, Sir J
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Winterton, Rt Hon. Earl


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.



Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Nicholson, G
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Major Conant and Major Ramsay.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

3.48 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): I beg to move,
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Schedule 3 standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Westwood.
The purpose of asking for reconsideration is to enable the House to consider several Amendments which stand in my name on the Order Paper for the purpose of giving effect to a promise which I made in the Committee.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I do not wish to oppose this Motion for a moment, but I would point out that there are other Amendments which do not fall into the class to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. He must not think that we propose to accept all the Amendments as they stand.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Classes of development excepted from payment of development charge.)

3.50 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Buchanan): I beg to move, in Schedule 3, page 122, line 35, to leave out lines 35 and 36, and to insert:

EXCEPTED CLASSES OF DEVELOPMENT

Part I

Development Included in Existing Use for Purposes other than Compensation under s 17."

The title of this Schedule has given rise to some misunderstanding and has led to requests to include numerous other exceptions from the development charge. The object of the Amendment is to change the title of the Schedule, which is to be divided into two parts. The main purpose of the Schedule is to settle the dividing line between the existing use values and the development values. The operations specified in Part I are exempt from development charge but no compensation is payable if planning permission to such operations is refused. In the event of a refusal and it being shown


that the land is incapable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing state, it will be open to the owner to require the local planning authority to purchase the land under Clause 16. If the land is purchased under that Clause or under any other of the provisions of the Bill compensation will be assessed on the basis that there is a right to carry out the operations referred to in Part I. It may be asked why no compensation is payable under the refusal of the planning permission. The answer is that the refusal of permission in these cases does not necessarily mean any immediate loss of income to the owner.

Mr. Charles Williams: I quite realise the position of the owner, but what would happen if the best fields were taken from a farm, leaving the tenant only with the worst? How does the tenant stand in such circumstances? Is he safeguarded in the same way as the landlord where he no longer has a commercial unit?

Mr. Buchanan: The answer is that in this matter agricultural land is exempted.

Mr. Williams: But is it exempted? What about land taken for house building? I have a case in mind. I ask the Joint Under-Secretary—I am not at all in a controversial mood—to look into this if he is not absolutely certain because it may be necessary to amend the Bill in some other place

Mr. McKie: I would like to support the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). During the war here were many such cases. Very often the best fields or the best land were taken and sometimes the tenant—perhaps the tenant of a very good dairy farm—was left with a mere shred of the kernel and unable to carry on the dairy production which is so essential for the nation's need. I should like the hon. Gentleman to respond to the advice of the hon. Member for Torquay and to tell the Committee just where the tenants will stand. Even the Socialist Government is concerned with the principle of fair and just compensation, and I want fair and just compensation for the landlord and the tenant too. The hon. Gentleman has not been able to assure us where the tenant stands. This is a reasonable plea which we put forward, and it is essential that we should know.
I would very much have preferred the Joint Under-Secretary—I have never before seen him do what he did today—to come to the Box and explain the Amendment without a brief. The hon. Gentleman is always much happier without a brief. I do not say this is any sense offensively, but the hon. Gentleman gave me the impression that he was endeavouring to explain this Amendment to the Committee when he was not completely master of the subject. That is why he has aroused in our breasts fear as to where the tenant may stand or may not stand.

Mr. Buchanan: I thank the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) for his courtesy and brevity and I trust that we shall get through this Bill in the same reasonable spirit. The answer is that the tenant has equal rights with the owner to make a claim.

Mr. C. Williams: I would like to thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy and to say that I should not have raised this except that I believe an injustice exists. I encountered a case on Sunday which I have put before the Minister. I would like him really to see that the tenant gets adequate compensation for the fact that the farm is no longer an industrially working unit.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page 122, line 37, to leave out "occasion may require," and to insert:
the person having the right to rebuild may desire.
This is the first of a series of Amendments extending the exemptions from the payment of development charges. Upstairs we were asked not only by the Opposition, but by some of my hon.. Friends, to extend the scope of this Schedule. This Amendment makes it clear that no development charge is payable in respect of rebuilding as often as the person having the right to rebuild has the desire to do so.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: We appreciate the Government's action in meeting points which were raised upstairs, but I should also say that in this very large Order Paper there are a great many Amendments which go entirely the other way, and, so far from meeting the points raised, stiffen the Bill very much against


the points put forward by the Opposition. We shall have to say something on that class of Amendment. I quite agree, however, that this Amendment and the next two Amendments show the fruits of our somewhat lengthy and tedious efforts in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move in page 123, line 4, after "exceeded," to insert:
in the case of a dwellinghouse, by more than one-tenth or fifteen hundred cubic feet, whichever is the greater, and in any other case.
Upstairs we heard a great deal of criticism from both sides of the Committee on the 10 per cent. tolerance which applies to small and large houses. The point was made that in many of the small houses in Scotland 10 per cent. was nothing at all for practical purposes, though it might be all right in a large house with 20 rooms. My right hon. Friend went into the matter and thought something ought to be done to ease the position of the person with a small house who wanted to make decent lavatory or bathroom accommodation. Therefore, he suggests 1,500 cubic feet or 10 per cent. whichever is the greater. We think this concession meets the criticism made upstairs and goes some way to meeting what we think is a real need.

Commander Galbraith: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that this was a matter put very strongly in Committee. What we had in mind was the small house, particularly in the rural areas. The hon. Gentleman said that he considered 1,500 cubic feet would be sufficient for additional sanitary accommodation. I agree, but we were looking to the inclusion in a building attached to the cottage of a kitchenette with bathroom attached. I have been working it out, and it would seem that the 1,500 cubic feet would cover that, but it may be a little tight. As we look at things at present it might be considered to be sufficient, but times change and we do not want to add something on now which in 10 or 15 years' time we shall be told showed a complete lack of imagination. We accept willingly this gesture and we appreciate it, but we would have liked it to go a little further; even another 100 cubic feet would have made the condition more clear.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Not only that, but there is a point to which the Committee addressed itself for some time upstairs, namely, that of industrial buildings and shops. The hon. Gentleman will remember that we discussed the case of shops which have been swept away for some reason—burned out or bomb destroyed—or which were no longer there at the appointed day, and which the owners desired to rebuild with more than a 10 per cent. tolerance in view of their desire to make them conform to modern standards of accommodation and modern requirement for the display of goods, adequate lighting and so on—

The Chairman: This Amendment deals with dwelling houses.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I was regret ting, Major Milner, that the Amendment did not refer also to industrial buildings.

Mr. Willis: As one of those who raised this matter upstairs, I would express our thanks to my hon Friend for this Amendment. I am not sure that it goes quite as far as one would like. It depends upon the standards which we set ourselves. I rather think that in Scotland we have to get out of the habit of thinking that two rooms and a bathroom are sufficient for a wife, husband and children because it does not allow of sex separation. I would have liked to see this Amendment go further, particularly as the comparison with the treatment of animals in this Schedule is rather invidious. However, I and my hon. Friends are grateful for what has been done, and we shall accept this Amendment.

Mr. McKie: I join in the chorus of approval, especially with regard to what has just been said by the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis). I, too, wish that the right hon. Gentleman had been able to go a little further in the drafting of this Amendment, in order to allow more elbow room in the rebuilding of the houses specified in the Schedule. The hon. Member for North Edinburgh was speaking as the representative of a highly organised urban constituency in the Scottish metropolis, and I can understand that his words were very restrained when he spoke of the conditions there and the uncomfortable surroundings of many unfortunate people in his Division and,


indeed, in the Divisions in the Scottish provinces with the exception of land represented by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling). However, while sympathising with the urban point of view, I, as the representative of a purely agricultural area, am specially concerned with the plight of those who have to depend for their living on tilling the soil, and very many people in the countryside of Scotland are living in conditions described by the hon. Member for North Edinburgh. I wish, therefore, that this Amendment had given us a little more elbow room, because the new wording will scarcely meet completely the kind of case that we have in view. I hope this will not be taken as a "law of the Medes and Persians which altereth not." The hon. Gentleman may say that in ten years we may have to make fresh provision in a new housing Bill. If that is so, well and good, but I hope that by accepting this Amendment we are not locking the door to any additional improvements in the future.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move in page 123, line 4, at the end to insert:
2. The use as two or more separate dwel-linghouses of any building which on the appointed day was used as a single dwelling-house.

Part II

Development Included in Existing Use for All Purposes."

This Amendment does three things. It exempts from development charge the conversion of a dwelling house into flats; it enables any increase in value due to the possibility of such conversion to be paid to the owner and, in the event of an unconverted house being purchased under compulsory powers, it precludes the owner from claiming against the £300 million for any development value due to the possibility of such conversion. In effect, therefore, it recognises that any value from conversion purposes is part of an existing use value of land which the Bill leaves, and not part of the development value which the Bill transfers to the State. This matter was debated upstairs and we think this goes some way, at least to meet the views expressed.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I think the Government have been very wise to accept this, because a very long time was taken up in Committee pointing out the appalling con-

sequences if the Bill stood as it was in this respect. I do not think that time was wasted, nor do I think time would be wasted if the hon. Gentleman looked a little more suspiciously at undigested Bills handed to him by his English colleagues—

Mr. Buchanan: I want this Bill to go through quickly, but I cannot allow the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that without comment. This was suggested by the common sense usually associated with people from our part of the world.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 123, line 6, leave out "occasion may require," and insert:
the person having the right to carry out such operations may desire.

In line 10, after "exceeded," insert:
in the case of a dwellinghouse, by more than one-tenth or fifteen hundred cubic feet, whichever is the greater, and in any other case."— [Mr. Buchanan.]

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move in page 123, line 16, after "grounds," to insert," or timber yards."
In Committee, an Amendment was accepted adding the word "forestry" to paragraph 3 of this Schedule. The present Amendment is really consequential.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: The drafting of this is so difficult that I am not sure whether timber yards are or are not a permitted use without paying development charge. Would it not have been consequential on inserting the word "forestry" that a nursery should also be exempted? It is not much good exempting forestry and making nurseries subject to development charge. Perhaps this could be looked at again.

Mr. Buchanan: I will look at the point about nurseries again. The Amendment guarantees exemption, but it would not exempt a fully developed sawmill. Everything associated with normal forestry work would be exempt.

Commander Galbraith: I should have thought that, having put in the word "forestry," we ought to exempt things, such as timber yards, connected with forestry. I can understand the hon. Gentleman's remark about a fully developed sawmill, but a timber yard is not a sawmill

Mr. Buchanan: A timber yard is exempt. This is merely to safeguard buildings like a sawmill which may be erected for other purposes, and it makes it quite clear that the timber yard is associated with forestry, and is so exempt.

Mr. Reid: I think not. What is exempt is
… carrying out, on land … or forestry … other than
and the words "other than" still continue to govern the words "timber yards." Therefore a timber yard will be one of the things which are not exempt from development charge, if the words are put in in this place. I cannot help thinking that they are put in in the wrong place, and for that reason I ask that this matter shall be looked at again. I think the intention is to exempt timber yards, but it is put the wrong way round. As I say, the drafting is complicated, but if the hon. Gentleman says that the intention is to exempt timber yards, and that this will be put right, if it is wrong, that will satisfy me.

Mr. Buchanan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must not take it as sarcastic when I say that when a distinguished member of the Bar says we ought to look at this again we must do so. It is our intention that timber yards should be exempt, and if there is any doubt about it we will have it put right.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Scollan: I think it is perfectly simple. The paragraph would read:
nursery grounds or timber yards or for other purposes not connected with general farming operations.

Mr. Reid: Yes, but it is the wrong way round.

Mr. Scollan: It is not the wrong way round.

Mr. Buchanan: We think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) is right, but we will examine it, and make certain.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 123, line 17, at end, insert:
or with the cultivation of telling 01 trees."—[Mr. Buchanan.]

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page 123, line 18, to leave out "before," and to insert "on."
This follows an earlier Amendment. Paragraph 4 of the Third Schedule enables the Secretary of State to specify any general class of use within which buildings or other land used for purposes before the appointed day may be used for other purposes without paying development charge. This Amendment is to specify that that shall be done on the appointed day and to make it clear that it is only on the appointed day.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I think this Amendment narrows the matter unduly. If the word "on" is inserted this paragraph will read:
In the case of a building or other land which, on the appointed day, was used for a purpose falling within any general class—
Very often one does not use a building or land for that purpose every day of the year. It may well happen that it is not being used on the appointed day for any purpose at all, and we shall get into all sorts of troubles if we try to tie it up narrowly like this. I thought the intention was to prevent the old prewar use, and I would not have objected if it had been limited to the use made of the building or land within the last 12 months. I hope that the Amendment will not be insisted upon, but that at a subsequent stage another word for the word "before" will be inserted. To tie this to one day, and say that the land must, have been used for this purpose on 1st April but that it does not matter for what i was used on 31st March or 2nd April, is making it too narrow. I hope that this cramping Amendment will not be insisted upon.

Mr. Buchanan: We thought we were being helpful. Paragraph 4 places no limitation on the length of time for which buildings or land may be used for any purpose in a specified general class. We will look at the matter again, but we felt that if we made it the appointed day it would be better than to leave it as an unlimited period of time.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 123, line 21, after "paragraph," insert:
or which, being unoccupied on the appointed day, was last used (otherwise than before the seventh day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven) for any such purpose."—[Mr Buchanan.]

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Schedule, as amended, be the Third Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: It would be ungracious not to say that this Schedule has been considerably improved. On the other hand, it is highly desirable that one should again say here, where our proceedings get much more publicity than do our proceedings upstairs, how extremely unsatisfactory even the amended Schedule is. I will mention only two points. Other of my hon. Friends may have other points to raise. Under the Schedule, with all its Amendments, one still has to pay a charge, if one wants to set up even the humblest new dwelling house anywhere, even in the most remote fastnesses of the country, where there has been no question of the owner of the property having had any share of the £300 million. I can see the argument for saying that a person who wants to build a dwelling house, and who has had a share in the £300 million, ought to pay back part of that share if he wants to put up a house. Even that, however, would be unduly limiting and cramping the rehousing of our people, and the Government would have been well advised to forego the tiny financial advantage they get in order to place no obstacles in the way of rehousing our people. When we consider agricultural land the owner of which has had no share, and could have had no share, in the £300 million, it is monstrous for the Government to say, "We shall fine you before you are allowed to rehouse your agricultural workers."
I cannot help stressing once again the grave danger to agriculture in particular which this Schedule will constitute. There is another point. It is surely important in the coming years, the more so as pessimistic statements by the Government develop, that we should grow every ounce of food we can in this country. Therefore, I should have thought it highly desirable that the way should be free for a transfer from general farming to market gardening and intensive cultivation of that kind. Again, one has to pay a charge before one can change from general farming to market gardening. One must not erect, enlarge, improve or alter any building used for the purposes of market gardening without being fined. That is surely in flat contradiction of Government policy for the encouragement of agriculture.
I can understand, in England, the Minister of Town and Country Planning, who has no direct responsibility for agriculture, allowing these things to go into his Bill, but I cannot understand the right hon. Gentleman, who is Minister of Agriculture in Scotland, allowing two provisions to pass which are so directly contrary to his own interests as the Minister charged with the improvement of our agriculture. How he can reconcile allowing these provisions to go into this Bill and thereby cramp and hamper the growing of food in Scotland, with his agricultural responsibilities, passes my comprehension. I wish to make the most emphatic protest on behalf of those of us who sit on this side of the Committee against this niggling way of trying to get a few pounds of money out of agricultural landlords, even though in the process it seriously hampers the growing of food for our people, who will very soon want it.

Colonel Gomme-Dunean: I would like very strongly to support what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hill-head (Mr. Reid) has said in this respect. It is of the utmost importance today that we should develop in Scotland all the food production we possibly can, and this Schedule will undoubtedly have a restricting effect on the people who are trying to carry out that most necessary development. As my right hon. and learned Friend has said, one has only to consider the development from ordinary straightforward farming to market gardening. Nothing is needed more desperately in Scotland today than the extension of market gardening. This Schedule cramps the opportunity of people to develop land in that way, which will be much to the detriment of the Scottish people. I cannot understand how the right hon. Gentleman can agree to legislation of this kind on such a vital matter, which he and his colleagues are telling us every day will affect the wellbeing of this country as never before.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: It is difficult to understand why the Secretary of State resists the demand which has been made from this side of the Committee on the question of market gardening and agriculture. In practice, it is impossible to distinguish between the one and the other. As I said in the Com-


mittee, some of the most outstanding farmers in the world are in Scotland, where, in fact, every day of the year for years past, and I hope for years to come, market gardening and agriculture are combined to a perfection which is without compare in any part of the world. A particular farm to which I direct the attention of the Secretary of State has its system of underground steam piping, which has been described in almost every agricultural paper in every English speaking part of the world I have also seen an account translated into many languages. This farmer has many hundreds of acres of arable land, and also hundreds of acres of first-class highly cultivated land devoted to market gardening. Neither of these two sides of his undertaking could be worked without the other.
If the Secretary of State says to him, "You may put an extra building in that field because that, in my judgment—the great Secretary of State for Scotland—is agricultural land, but over the fence, where you are stupid enough to be growing lettuces, no, not a single building must be put there or I shall fine you." That is sheer nonsense. What will that man and other men like him do? They will dodge the law because they think so much of food production, and will make a fool of the Secretary of State. They will put a building in a particular place and call the land agricultural land when it is used for market gardening, and I question whether there is a judge in the land who will say that they are doing anything illegal or stupid. Surely, the Secretary of State does not intend gratuitously to make a fool of himself as he is doing in this Schedule. Is it not possible for him to consult his own advisers on the matter? Every Department in the country has its sections. The Department of Agriculture in Scotland has its horticultural, livestock and other sections, but they are all under one head, that of agriculture; there is one Minister and one permanent secretary in charge. The National Farmers' Union is divided into branches. The farmworkers in Scotland have their branches. There are men and women, mostly women in the East of Scotland, working in market gardens for certain hours and under certain rules. There are sections dealing with every branch of farming. Why does the Secretary of State close his eyes and

refuse to recognise that the two branches are part of agriculture? I find it crazy. The Secretary of State is doing one of two things, either inviting people to flout the law, or cutting down food production Either must surely be a bad thing
4.30 p.m.
The Secretary of State has made a grudging response to our appeal to free the farm cottage. I admit that he has gone some way, but it was a very grudging concession. It will still hamper the development and extension of farm workers' cottages. One cannot, at one and the same time, condemn capitalism, as the Government and their supporters are doing, and take away from these people the only way in which they can justify their existence and improve social conditions. I condemn as readily as any hon. Member opposite any landlord who declines or fails to improve his cottages. It Is his duty to improve his cottages if he is allowed, but now he cannot do it. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Why did not the Government do it before the war?"] If hon. Members want to talk about conditions before the war we can go back, but surely we are concerned with the position today. Let us discuss the position as it is now.
I could quote countless cases in East Fife where owners of agricultural properties are faced with the most appalling obstacles in their endeavours to have their cottages repaired, extended and improved Hon. Members opposite must know the position. Why do they make it more difficult? Do they not want farm labourers to be better housed? Throughout this Bill this awful prejudice against the private ownership of property is reflected, not in the owner, but in the poor men and women who occupy these cottages today. That is the damning thing about this Schedule and other parts of the Bill. The Government know perfectly well. I see the Joint Under-Secretary of State laughing at me—let us say that it is an encouraging smile. I was today handed this book on rent restriction. What does this mean? It means as hon. Members know very well, that no owner of property can get his rents increased. Therefore, he is going to get nothing out of improvements to his cottages. An extension or development would not bring him in any more money. Why for the sake of these stupid prejudices,


prevent people who occupy little cottages being given better conditions? This is a crime on the part of the Government of which I should have thought they would be utterly ashamed. If this Schedule goes through without any alteration, the Government should be ashamed.

Mr. McAllister: The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) has spoken with his usual venom and his usual lack of appreciation of all the things involved in the subject about which he is talking. He talked as If this were something new. He says the Secretary of State for Scotland is trying to differentiate between agricultural land and market gardening land. He accuses the Secretary of State of showing no great sympathy for the future of our agricultural land and especially for the future of our market garden land near our great cities. The hon. Member mentioned the market garden land near Edinburgh. I am sure he knows as well as anybody in this Committee that hundreds of acres of precious market garden land near Edinburgh, and equally hundreds of acres of precious market garden land near Glasgow, were swallowed up between the wars by ill considered development which this Bill is designed to prevent. He said that there was no distinction or, at any rate, that there would be a process of law dodging. I take it that he was not advocating that or putting it down as the policy of the Liberal-National Party.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member should not gratuitously offer insults of that kind. I did not say any such thing. I was urging the Secretary of State for Scotland not to undermine the dignity of the law.

Mr. McAllister: If I recollect the hon. Member rightly, not only did he say that there would be law dodging, but he went so far as to say that not one of His Majesty's judges would dare to do other than condone such a thing. He said that there is no difference between agricultural and market garden land. Personally, I feel that there should be no distinction of any kind in regard to land. We ought to deal exclusively in one commodity—land. That has not been the practice of landowners in the past. We have had land which has been derelict waste land, or purely agricultural land, and then, when some corpora-

tion wanted to do something to improve the value of the land and improve the service to the community, its value has shot up and it has acquired a completely different designation. This Bill is designed to prevent that sort of thing.
This Schedule makes exemptions. I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) had the courtesy, as he usually has, to acknowledge that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Joint Under-Secretary have gone a long way to meet the desires of the Committee in the Amendments which have been made. That is true, and the Secretary of State and the Joint Under-Secretary should be congratulated. We on this side of the Committee are at least as keen as the hon. Member for East Fife, or anybody else, to protect agriculture and market gardening. We believe that these causes will be furthered by this Schedule.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: What the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister) did not tell the Committee was the effect of the passing of this Schedule as it stands, upon agriculture, particularly with regard to the housing of rural workers. Under the Schedule, as amended, the owner of agricultural property can improve his farm steadings without incurring a liability for development charge. He can improve the byre in which he keeps his cattle. As the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) suggested, he can improve the conditions under which his livestock are housed. But if he endeavours to build a new cottar house for a farm worker, or to extend an existing cottar house by more than 1,500 cubic feet or 10 per cent. whichever is the greater, then he has to pay a development charge which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) rightly described as a fine of an unknown amount.
I am very disappointed that the Secretary of State has not told us today that he has been able to go further along the road which was outlined by the Minister of Town and Country Planning as long ago as 20th May last. On that occasion, in connection with a proposal that had been made upstairs when the English Town and Country Planning Bill was under discussion, he told the Committee that he was in consultation with agricultural interests to see whether it would be


possible to allow farm cottages to be treated somewhat in this way. They were to be valued in the usual way, the improvement was to be assessed, and a development charge imposed such as is proposed in this Schedule. If, upon a certificate of an agricultural committee, it could be shown that that cottar house was to be used for agricultural occupation only, then and from year to year so long as the certificate held good, the liability for development charge, which would be upon an annual basis, would be waived. I and some of my hon. Friends pressed that the Minister should embark upon a similar course. He told us that he would look at it sympathetically. I am very disappointed indeed that he has not done anything in this Schedule and that we must pass it now in the form in which that kind of hindrance to the proper housing of agricultural workers in Scotland is possible.
I would like to ask one question arising from this Schedule and an Amendment which the Committee has sanctioned today. In another part of the Bill, in Clause 9 (3, a),the Committee will later be asked to say that:
the use as two or more separate dwelling-houses of many building previously used as a single dwellinghouse involves a material change in the use of the building and of each part thereof which is so used;
Ought not that paragraph to be withdrawn, in view of the Amendments which we have passed recently on this matter? I am not sure that this is the proper place to raise this point, but I do not know, if I do not raise it now, where else I can raise it. I hope that whoever replies will give the Committee some guidance upon that point.

Mr. McKie: There can be no question that this Schedule, even with all the Amendments which have been made to it, is about to leave the Committee in a very imperfect state, and I share to the full the apprehensions that have been expressed on this side of the Committee about the position of horticulture in Scotland as a consequence of the way in which this Schedule has been drafted. I am surprised that the Joint Under-Secretary has turned such a deaf ear to all our pleas, both upstairs in Committee and here this afternoon, because, after all, horticulture and market gardening in Scotland are not in

the condition in which we would all like to see them. There is no question that the passage of this Schedule in its present form will have a very depressing effect upon those engaged in horticulture and market gardening. It is usual to declare one's interest in a matter on which one is speaking, and I certainly declare my interest in market gardening, because I go in for it in a small way, and I can say that the views that have been expressed by my hon. Friends exactly fit my own point of view, because I find that I am likely to be penalised if I make some small development in my own small venture.
Further—and this is a point which has not yet been made—as I read paragraph 3 of the Third Schedule, forestry will also be penalised to a certain extent, because, after market gardens, we see that nursery grounds are also to be placed in the same category, in which anybody proceeding with a development may have to pay a substantial fine. The right hon. Gentleman knows just how largely forestry bulks in the general economy of Scotland. Certainly, I would say—and the Joint Under-Secretary nods his approval—it comes a very good second to agriculture, horticulture and market gardening, and I certainly think that anybody connected with forestry who reads this paragraph carefully may have ample grounds for fear that developments which he might have expected will not be entered upon in consequence of the risk to be run and the dire results that will follow. The right hon. Gentleman, in another Amendment to which the Committee has agreed, has now caused timber yards to be inserted in the Schedule, and they are now placed in the same category as market gardens, so that anybody who tries a modest development may run very serious risks. It is true that, at line 17, the Committee has agreed to an Amendment covering the cultivation or felling of trees, which may cancel out any fears I have expressed as to how forestry development would be effected. I see the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Then, I have no safeguard at all as to what the interpretation of the law may be—

Mr. Westwood: May I explain that I was shaking my head in view of the fact that this Schedule was reasonably well discussed in Committee, and because I have made concessions arising out of promises


I gave, and yet we are having all this further discussion.

Mr. McKie: The right hon. Gentleman cannot well object while you, Major Milner, allow the discussion to continue, and while reasonable fears are being expressed. I am entitled to say that forestry plays a very large part in the economy of Scotland

Mr. McAllister: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Gentleman in Order in pursuing his argument in view of the discussion that took place on paragraph 3 of this Schedule, and in view of the reply given to the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) that timber yards were not excluded from the development charge?

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is not out of Order, but if he will forgive my saying so he is very repetitive and discursive and not always on the point under discussion.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. McKie: I hope that we are not going to have the kind of conundrum as was envisaged by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart). I think that, in the defence which the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister) put up, he gave a caricature of what was said by the hon. Member for East Fife, who only suggested that the matter might be so involved that no judge would be in a position to say just what the law was or exactly what was intended, and, therefore, the people who wished to evade it would be able to do so. I hope the Under-Secretary may be able to say something about that point. I am not satisfied that, as regards rural housing, this would work out in the way we would like. The hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) asked us why we did not do it in the years before the war. A very great deal was done in Scotland, and I would advise him to look up the records for the counties in Scotland and see what was done. I admit that some counties came out very much better than others. I say that the rural worker will not have his state of affairs bettered as a result of the passage of this Schedule, or, at least, bettered in the way in which that task was done in the so-called bad old days before the Labour Government came to office.

Mr. Scollan: I would not have intervened in this discussion except for the criticism that has been offered. Anybody listening to this Debate might have got the impression that everybody was gasping to get down to the building of cottages for agricultural workers.

The Chairman: We cannot go into the general question of housing. I agree that the hon. Member did just mention the point, and I allowed another hon. Gentleman to make his reply, but the discussion of rural housing in general is out of Order in this Debate.

Mr. McKie: Further to that point of Order. Surely, the question concerning cubic feet, which has been mentioned in an Amendment, raises the whole question of housing in Scotland, urban as well as rural?

Mr. Scollan: The argument has been used that this Schedule will arrest all development in housing for agricultural workers in Scotland. That is the criticism of the Schedule. If that were true, then, obviously, something should be done about it, but it is not true. Therefore, one is entitled to ask, what arrested the development of housing for agricultural workers before this Bill came in? At the present time, whatever is done for agriculture will only be done with the help of Government subsidy. Consequently, we are entitled to see that any large house which is turned into a number of separate dwellings pays a development charge. This Bill is not an agricultural area Bill; it covers the whole of Scotland. Therefore, this Schedule must be read in conjunction with development under urban as well as rural areas. I do not think that any real criticism of the Bill can be offered, especially in view of the fact that when there was plenty of material and labour, and when money was plentiful, the party to which hon. Members opposite belong never tried to build houses for the rural workers in Scotland.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The hon. Gentleman stated that what had been said on this matter was untrue, but he has not developed it further than that.

Commander Galbraith: I think that this is the most important Schedule to the Bill, and that, therefore, the discussion has, perhaps, been well worth while. I would like to say one word in reply to


the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr Scollan). I think he will find that money was not plentiful. Where a farmer has money, the fact is that he is only too anxious to build for the occupation of his workers. I want to mention two things which, I think, have been missed out, and which are going to affect the development of housing in the rural areas. The first is the extra charge that is going to be inflicted, and the second is delay. When people want to go ahead with a thing, and then find all kinds of delays cropping up, they are likely to become discouraged. I agree with the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister) I am quite certain that both the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are as keen as anyone of us to help the production of food. Therefore, having listened to the arguments which have been put forward, and which are of some force, I would ask them to consider once more before this Bill becomes an Act, whether it would not be wise to help the production of food in every way they can. I leave that matter with the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to consider once again.

Mr. Buchanan: Three points have been covered in this discussion. The first is the effect on dwelling houses; the second, the point about nursery gardens; and the third, the point raised by the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley), as to why we have not dropped Clause 9 (3). The answer to the last point is that it is necessary to have that provision in order to make it clear that there is planning control
With regard to the first two points, the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Stewart) always commands my sympathy, first, because I have spoken so many times from the corner in which he sits, and, second, because I, in common with him, always had the failing when speaking of being inclined to overstate my case. There was his condemnation of the nursery. It is always difficult when a Government go out to meet their opponents and the criticisms made, because, if they give way on any point, that fact is always put forward as proof that they were wrong For instance, if we had brought agriculture within this Bill, the hon. Gentleman's speech would have been completely out of line, because then he would not have been able to

mention the nursery; he would only have been able to ask why we had left out agriculture. Listening to him, I almost felt like bringing in agriculture in order to hear the glowing speech he would have made. We have been generous, but the line has to be drawn somewhere Many hon. Friends of mine think that agriculture nowadays, taking into consideration guaranteed markets, etc., should not be treated differently from the rest of the community. We have gone that way to meet the hon. Gentleman, but, because we do not go further, we are attacked Let me deal with the question—

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is not answering the point I made. How does he distinguish between the one and the other?

Mr. Buchanan: The only way to meet the hon. Gentleman's case would be to bring agricultural land into relation with the rest of the land dealt with in this Bill. For instance, he says that the nursery land is necessary But the engineering shop which makes the agricultural machinery is also necessary. I say quite frankly to the hon Gentleman that the business of nursery farming and the development of nursery farming are, in many ways, as good a commercial proposition as that of the engineering works on the Clyde and in the Glasgow area.
One would think from the speeches which we have heard this afternoon that we were altering the law with regard to the development or alteration of a house. We do not make any change there. The owner of a house can change and alter it as much as he likes without any interference from us. We say—and here we meet hon. Members opposite again—that in the case of the smaller house there should be considerable room for improvement. We have put that into the Bill. It is true that the dwelling house is provided for. Speaking from memory, I think it is under Clause 63 that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has power, when he looks at the situation, to exempt any dwelling house he may desire when issuing his regulations. That, I think, really answers the point made by the hon. Member for West Aberdeen in relation to a speech made by the Minister in connection with the English Bill. If, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State issues his regulations, he


feels that something like that ought to be done, he has the power under Clause 63 to do it.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: That is quite true, but the right hon. Gentleman has been looking at these things—or ought to have been looking at them—since 20th May. Surely, it should be possible for him, after all that lapse of time, to come to the Committee and say, "I intend to cover these points in the regulations." That is what we want him to say.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: My right hon. Friend will cover the points when he sees the broad outline. That is the answer which he has already given. On the whole, we have gone a considerable way to meet the various criticisms and, with the explanations we have been given, we trust this Schedule will now be agreed to.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: I would like to say one more word arising out of the statement of the Joint Under-Secretary. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Stewart) the hon. Gentleman took the line that he had given way on the question of agriculture, and appeared to think that he was being asked to give way further on the question of market gardens. Nothing is further from the truth. One must have a comparison with something. The comparison is with agricultural land; otherwise, there would never be any development values at all. There is no giving way. What is the basis of this legislation? Surely it is the Uthwatt Report. That Report says:
The owner of a farm, for instance, will remain free to farm in such a manner as be thinks fit and to make any such improvements as are in his view proper.
What could be more proper than building additional houses on a farm? The Report goes on:
The occupier of a house and garden or park which falls within the scheme will remain free to use his property for all the purposes of his residence, and (subject to compliance with any local bye-laws) will remain entitled to put up such additional buildings as are necessary or designed for the improvement or amenities of his house.
Those are the two things for which we are asking, and for which we think there should be provision in this Schedule. On agricultural land a man should be entitled to build houses for his workers and to improve the houses which exist there

without any limitation; secondly, a person who is in occupation of a house should be able to make any improvements he wishes to that house, and to build anything in his garden without payment of a development charge, provided, of course, he gets planning permission. Those are the two things which we think should be in the Schedule.

Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments.

As amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

NEW CLAUSE—(Agreements regulating development or use of land.)

(1) A local planning authority may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, enter into an agreement with any person interested in land in their area (in so far as the interest of that person enables him to bind the land) for the purpose of restricting or regulating the development or use of the land, either permanently or during such period as may be prescribed by the agreement, and any such agreement may contain such incidental and consequential provisions (including provisions of a financial character) as appear to the local planning authority to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of the agreement.

(2) An agreement made under this Section with any person interested in land, may, if the agreement shall have been recorded in the appropriate register of sasines, be enforceable at the instance of the authority against persons deriving title to the land from the person with whom the agreement was entered into:
Provided that no such agreement shall at any time be enforceable against a third party who shall have in bona fide onerously acquired right (whether completed by infeftment or not) to the land prior to the agreement being recorded as aforesaid or against any person deriving title from such third party.

(3)Nothing in this Section or in any agreement made there under shall be construed as restricting or requiring the exercise, in relation to land which is the subject of any such agreement, of any powers exercisable by any Minister or authority under this Act.—[Mr. Westwood.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Westwood: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause is based on Section 33 of the 1932 Act, and the object of the Clause is to enable local planning authorities, with the approval of the Secretary of State, to make agreements with owners and other persons with an interest in land for restricting and regulating the development and the use of land


either permanently or temporarily. I presume that the Subsections speak for themselves and, although I am quite willing to explain them if necessary, I believe there is a general desire to get through the programme in a reasonable time, and I will, therefore, say no more.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman of what use this new Clause is, particularly from the point of view of Subsection (3). If I understand it aright, an owner of land may bind himself not to do certain things or to develop his land in a certain way, and he may get the approval of the Secretary of State and the planning authority, but at any moment any other Minister may break the whole bargain, or, indeed, the Secretary of State himself may do so if he changes his mind. There is no security to the landowner that the Government will keep their side of the bargain. Subsection (3) seems to give notice to anyone intending to make an agreement, to this effect: "Take notice that the Government may break their side of the bargain at any time they like." What is the good of asking people to make agreements in those circumstances? Surely, when the Secretary of State gives his approval to an agreement, be ought to be able to say, "My part of the agreement is that I guarantee you will not be interfered with for ten, 15 or 20 years." Unless he can give a guarantee of that sort, the agreement is just waste paper. Before this Bill becomes law, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether he can do something of that description which will make it worth while for landowners to enter into an agreement.

Commander Galbraith: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, I would like to know whether Subsection (2) is enforceable in the hands of the owner of land. It is enforceable at the instance of the authority, but is it enforceable at the instance of the authority alone? If so, that would increase the difficulties of the situation to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) referred.

Mr. Westwood: I will certainly look at those points. As I have proved in handling this Bill in the Scottish Grand Committee, I have always been willing to listen to any point which has been raised,

and to give it full consideration. I will certainly consider the point with regard to the possibility of making it a fixed agreement. Subsection (3) is the ordinary safeguarding provision. This point was repeatedly argued in Committee, and it is the usual constitutional point. No Minister will take action unless he is consulted, and then it becomes a collective decision. With regard to the point concerning the possibility of giving a guarantee for a certain period, I will look into it.

Commander Galbraith: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the agreement is enforceable at the instance of both parties to the agreement?

The Lord Advocate (Mr. G. R. Thomson): It certainly is.

Commander Galbraith: Why, then—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. and gallant Member has already spoken.

Commander Galbraith: May I, with permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, ask a question? I would like to know the reason for the words in Subsection (2):
… be enforceable at the instance of the authority.

The Lord Advocate: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will see that Subsection (2) says:
An agreement made under this Section with any person interested in land, may, if the agreement shall have been recorded in the appropriate Register of Sasines, be enforceable at the instance of the authority against persons deriving title to the land from the person with whom the agreement was entered into.
The fact that it has been recorded in the appropriate register gives the authority the right to enforce it against persons deriving title from the persons with whom the agreement was entered into. The intention is merely to make that point clear.

Commander Galbraith: Does it cut both ways?

The Lord Advocate: Apart from that, being an agreement between two parties, it is mutually enforceable.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Application to land regulated by special enactments.)

(1) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the provisions of this Act, and any restrictions or powers thereby imposed or conferred in relation to land, apply and may be exercised in relation to any land notwithstanding that provision is made by any enactment in force at the passing of this Act, or by any local Act passed at any time during the present Session of Parliament, for authorising of regulating any development of the land

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of he foregoing provision, references in any enactment contained in a local Act (including any such Act passed as aforesaid) to Part II of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1945, shall be construed—

(a) in relation to compensation payable on a compulsory acquisition of land thereunder in pursuance of a notice to treat served before the passing of this Act, as a reference to the said Part II as amended by this Act;
(b) in relation to compensation payable on a compulsory acquisition of land thereunder in pursuance of a notice to treat served after the passing of this Act. as a reference to Part III of this Act:
Provided that no such enactment shall, by virtue of this Subsection, be construed as excluding the application of the said Part III in relation to compensation payable in respect of any compulsory acquisition of land.—[The Lord Advocate.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause is in substitution of the present Clause 31, which we think could be improved. At present, it is not quite clear from the wording whether the other enactment referred to is one which will be in force when the Bill becomes law. Moreover, the original Clause 31 made no provision for amending the references to Part II of the 1945 Act. This also is provided for. The new Clause is simply a clarification of the original Clause.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Acquisition of land by Development Corporations under New Towns Act, 1946.)

(1) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the powers of acquiring land conferred by the New Towns Act, 1946, on a development corporation established for the purposes of a new town include power to acquire any land within the area designated under that Act as the site of the new town

whether or not it is proposed to develop or redevelop that particular land.

(2) Section five of the said Act (which regulates the disposal of land by development corporations) shall have effect as if in subsection (1), after the words "this Act" in the second place where those words occur, there were inserted the words "or for purposes connected therewith."—[Mr. Buchanan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Clause 3 of the Bill makes it clear that if an area of land is to be comprehensively developed, it does not necessarily mean that every yard of the land—every portion—is to be developed. That is what Clause 3 does. We think it desirable to include in this Bill similar powers in connection with the new towns. The new Clause also makes it clear that development corporations under the New Towns Act may dispose of land not only for the purposes of securing development of the new towns, but for any purposes connected therewith. That is the purpose of the new Clause.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Owing to our procedure we are coming now to this question of comprehensive redevelopment in a narrow sphere, before we deal with the more general question at a later stage of our proceedings today. Therefore, I must deal with it here and not let it pass by default. I cannot understand what the reason is for one of these corporations acquiring land which it does not intend to alter or develop. If it is not going to alter or develop the land, only two motives, that occur to me, can possibly actuate the corporation; either it wants to offer the land to the existing owner at a rent which gives it a profit over the price it chooses to pay; or else it wants to turn out the existing owner—I am taking the existing owner-occupier for simplicity, and very often he will be an owner-occupier—and put in some friend of its own. I should have thought both of these highly unsocial things to do; but there is no provision against them that I am aware of, either in this new Clause or in the subsequent Amendments that are to be moved from the benches opposite in due course.
If neither of these is the object, what is the object? Why should not the landlord remain there? What harm is he doing? I cannot see why the new town corporation


or any other corporation should seek to buy this land except to make a profit. If that is the motive, let us know about it. Let us, at least, have a guarantee that that would be the motive. If there is not to be any redevelopment, the person who is in occupation at the moment should have security of tenure. I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Rent Restriction Acts apply against the new town corporation. I do not know the answer to that question. If the Rent Restriction Acts do apply, and there is to be no knocking down of the houses, then, to that extent, my point is met. But there are a great many people not covered by the Rent Restriction Acts, such as people who pay rent above the limit; people who have mixed residential and business premises; people who have services or furniture in addition—though it is not likely in this connection—to the premises; and then, of course, there are offices, shops, and so on.
5.15 p.m.
Will the hon. Gentleman give us a firm undertaking that if any of these new bodies acquire land which they are not going to develop, they will be compelled by the Secretary of State to afford security of tenure to the people they find in occupation when they buy? That seems to me to be a very reasonable request, and one which we cannot possibly leave unanswered if we are to accept this new Clause; one to which, I think, we are entitled to have a definite answer before we get past this new Clause. When I say security of tenure, naturally, I include the people who own the land today. If they are owners at the moment, then there must be some provision for arbitration as to the proper amount for them to pay in future as tenants. If we buy out an owner-occupier and promise him security of tenure we must refer to some independent person the amount of rent he is to pay as the tenant. He was the owner before, and now becomes a tenant. If he is to remain in occupation there must be some means of fixing his rent.
I hope very much that the hon. Gentleman can answer that question, which seems to me to require an answer before we can accept this new principle. I am not at all clear that we can accept it even with that assurance, when we come

to the body of the Bill. I should not myself be inclined to divide on this new Clause if I got that assurance, and I say so for this reason: that it is quite obvious that the serious situation with regard to housing is such that no one, no Minister, could properly proceed with the building of a new town just now, because, quite obviously, it would take at least twice as much labour and material to settle 100 people in a new town as it would to settle them in, new houses in an old town. I cannot believe that any Minister with any sense of responsibility would proceed at present with the building of a new town. Therefore, I am not so urgently concerned about this matter as I am about the same provisions in the body of the Bill. But when we come to the body of the Bill we shall have to pursue this matter at some length. I should be prepared to advise my hon. Friends to accept this new Clause if, and only if, we get a firm assurance that no person will be displaced as a result of the compulsory acquisition of land which it is not intended to develop immediately.

Mr. Buchanan: If I may have permission to answer a number of points that have been raised, I would say, first, that it is not the intention of the Secretary of State that the new towns corporations ought to buy land for the purposes of speculation—that is, for the purpose of ensuring a high rent on favourable terms I am really surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should always look for sinister motives. This is not sinister. With the new towns starting, it is difficult to say to a yard or to an acre just exactly what is the actual ground that is required, and the corporation, the new town corporation, may take in more ground than it afterwards finds it actually needs. That is all that this Clause does, and it is not with any purpose of having a tenant or increasing the value. It is for that purpose and for that purpose alone. The Rent Restriction Act does apply under the New Towns Act and under this Bill. It does not abrogate or set aside the Rent Restriction Act.

Mr. Reid: This certainly does.

Mr. Buchanan: The New Towns Act does not set aside the Rent Restriction Act, and the Rent Restriction Act, will, therefore, apply to the new towns. As to the question of security, as the right hon.


and learned Gentleman knows, another Clause of this Bill looks after the security of the person displaced from a house, and makes his position reasonably secure. That will be applied in the same way by the Secretary of State to persons displaced under the New Towns Act. For the information of the right hon and learned Member, I say that I would not be a party, even with a new town, to turning anybody out on to the street needlessly and thoughtlessly. Indeed, I have been in conflict with one or two local authorities who almost want to put out on to the street what we call "squatters," because they want the land for a park or something of that description I would not be a party to that. The House may take it that all the reasonable assurances in other Clauses of the Bill, which apply to reasonable safeguards for the purpose of securing alternative accommodation, will, in my view, be operative in regard to the new towns. With the safeguards and guarantees I have given, I trust that the right hon. and learned Member can now accept the proposed new Clause.

Commander Galbraith: I do not think the Joint Under-Secretary really dealt with the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend, who inquired why, if the new towns corporations were not going to develop or redevelop a portion of that land—say, a street—and had no intention whatsoever of touching it, they should attempt to acquire it. I could not follow from what the hon. Gentleman said what the reason for that was, or where the necessity came in. I do not know if the hon. Gentleman would care to go further.

Mr. Buchanan: We cannot say to a new town corporation that they cannot interfere with this or that street. These bodies, which have great responsibilities, must be allowed some latitude in their work. It may well be that at first sight a certain street appears to be one which should be developed, but ultimately it is not developed after they have got closer to the job and found it an unnecessary or unreasonable proposition. These new bodies must be allowed that reasonable margin to which every businessman is entitled, and we propose to allow them that margin.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Modification of development plans in relation to land designated as subject to compulsory acquisition.

(1) Where any land is designated by a development plan as subject to compulsory acquisition, then if at the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the plan, or the amendment of the plan, by virtue of which the land was first so designated came into operation, any of that land has not been acquired by a Minister, local authority or statutory undertakers who could be authorised to acquire it compulsorily under the provisions of this Act, any owner of the land may, within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations under this Act, serve on the local planning authority a notice requiring his interest in the land to be so acquired.

(2)Where any such notice is served as afore said, then unless within six months after the service of the notice either—

(a) notice to treat in respect of the interest to which the notice relates has been served by any such Minister, authority or undertakers as aforesaid; or
(b)an offer has been made to the owner of the said interest by any such Minister, local authority or undertakers to acquire it on terms that the price payable therefor shall be equal to (and shall be determined, in default of agreement, in like manner as) the compensation which would be payable in respect of that interest if it were acquired compulsorily,
the development plan shall have effect, after the expiration of the said six months, as if the land were not designated as subject to compulsory acquisition.

(3)The power conferred by Subsection (2) of Section five of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, to with draw a notice to treat shall not be exercisable in the case of a notice to treat which is served as mentioned in paragraph (a)of the last fore going Subsection.

(4)Where any land is designated by a development plan as subject to compulsory acquisition by the appropriate local authority (not being land comprised in an area defined by the plan as an area of comprehensive development) then if planning permission is granted for any development of the land so designated, or any part thereof, and that development is carried out in accordance with the permission so granted, the development plan shall have effect as if the land to which the permission relates were not designated as subject to compulsory acquisition:
Provided that where any such permission as aforesaid is granted for a limited period only, the provisions of this Subsection shall cease to have effect in relation to the land at the expiration of that period

(5)In relation to land being agricultural land as defined in Subsection (4) of Section forty seven of this Act Subsection (1) of this Section shall have effect as if for the words "twelve years," there were substituted the words "eight years."—[Mr. Westwood.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Westwood: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
In the Scottish Standing Committee we had a fairly lengthy discussion on the problems associated with designation, and this new Clause is intended to meet some of the points which were put forward by hon. Members opposite during those Debates. The Clause provides that where land is designated by a development plan for compulsory acquisition and has not been acquired at the end of 12 years, or in the case of agricultural land at the end of eight years—no doubt it will be argued that we have not gone far enough, but this is an honest endeavour to try to meet the points which were made, and the Government are fixing a limited number of years—the owner may, by notice, require the Minister, the local authority or the statutory undertaking for whose purposes the land has been designated, to buy the land. If at the end of six months thereafter, notice to treat has not been served, or an offer has not been made to acquire the land, the designation ceases to have effect. As I have already said, this is an honest endeavour on my part, having considered the arguments that were used in Committee, to meet a point which was then raised.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 2, to leave out "twelve," and to insert "seven."
I should also like to discuss at the same time the following Amendment, which is consequential: In line 39, to leave out "eight," and to insert "five." We on this side of the House are grateful for this new Clause, so far as it goes. As the Secretary of State has said, it is an attempt, which he described as an honest attempt—and I am sure none of us would think that he could contemplate doing anything dishonest—to go as far as he could to meet what we said in the Committee. Let us look at what is being done. Under this Bill, land can be designated on a development plan as subject to compulsory acquisition for certain purposes. Those purposes are varied and wide. Land may be designated as subject to compulsory acquisition by any Government Department for the purpose of that

Department. It may be designated as subject to compulsory acquisition by statutory undertakers for the purposes of their statutory undertakings. It may be designated as subject to compulsory acquisition by local authorities for any public local purpose. It may also be designated, if it is part of an area which it is intended to develop comprehensively, or to redevelop.
Also—and here is the rub—it may be designated as subject to compulsory acquisition if, in the opinion of the local planning authority it ought to be subject to compulsory acquisition for the purpose of securing its use in a manner proposed by the plan. If that does not mean almost anything, I do not know what it does mean. It means, in effect, that almost any land comprised in a development order may be designated by the local planning authority as subject to compulsory acquisition. What happens to the owner of the property comprised in that area of designation? He is immediately cast under what we have described as "the blight of designation," which hangs like a cloud over his head. A man who owns a house, a farm, a shop or a factory sees from the plan that that house, that farm, that shop or that factory may be taken from him by compulsory powers within the next five years. It may even be taken from him within the next 10 years, because the Secretary of State cannot confirm the plan, in so far as it designates land subject to compulsory acquisition, unless he is satisfied that that compulsory acquisition is likely to take place within the next 10 years.
What we argued in Committee, the point of view we put forward and sought to bring to the attention of the Government, was that where a man had in that way been placed, as it were, under sentence of death, he should be allowed—if he had an opportunity of rehousing himself, or of re-accommodating himself elsewhere—to go to the local authority and to say, "I have found another house, or farm. Fulfil now the purpose of your designation and take my property from me compulsorily now; and pay me for it so that I will have the money with which to buy another place." One can conceive circumstances in which agricultural land will be designated as subject to compulsory acquisition, because, indeed, most of the development which is likely to take


place under the terms of this Bill will be the development of agricultural land. Agricultural land is practically the only source of vacant land in this country.
5.30 p.m.
So a farmer owning a farm within an area which has been designated as subject to compulsory acquisition will at once do two things. First, he will stop doing anything but essential repairs. He will carry out any maintenance which is necessary, such as putting tiles on the roof to keep out the weather, but he will not go in for any schemes of improvement. He will not try to convert a mixed farm into a dairy farm. He will not go in for planning which involves capital sums. He will certainly not do that unsocial thing, as one might be led to think from the attitude of the Government, of building a new cottar house. He will spend as little as possible, because he will know that his farm is likely to be taken away from him in the next 10 years. In the second place, he will look around to find another farm in which to rehouse himself. That means going round two or three counties to find the right type, because farms cannot easily be picked up in Scotland today. There will be a newspaper advertisement to the effect that offers are to be lodged on such and such a date, that boundaries will be pointed out on application, appointment to be made, and so on. It is not a case of only one or two offers being made, but of dozens. There is no doubt that this man will be in a very difficult position, because he will not know what he can offer for any property.
We argue that such a man ought to have the power to compel the local planning authority to fulfil the purposes of designation by acquiring the farm from him if he so desires, which will provide him with the money to rehouse himself. The right hon. Gentleman has made an honest attempt to meet us. By this Amendment, we are seeking to make this honest attempt a little more honest. The Government have said that in the case of farmland the farmer will have that power if the land has been designated for a period of eight years. Goodness me, is he for eight years to sit with this sword of Damocles hanging over his head, with his property unimproved, and without being able to help himself until the period has expired? We are seeking to do a

little more for him by reducing the period to five years.
In the case of the owner of a house, the Secretary of State, in his honest desire to meet us as far as he can, has said that after 12 years the owner can come along and say to the local planning authority: "Dash it all, you have had this compulsory purchase hanging over my head for 12 years; you must now come and buy the property." Only after 12 years can he make them do that. We are suggesting that the period should be reduced to seven years. I wish to justify this period of seven years, because it may seem rather an odd period. The House will recollect, that, under the terms of the Bill, planning authorities have to draw up development plans at once, and these have to be revised after five years, and thereafter in quinquennial periods. We say, if land has been designated for the first quinquennial period and has then been redesignated, and if the planning authority have not exercised their powers two years after the first revision, the owner should then be able to compel them to do so.
An owner who compels a local authority to take over his land will not be particularly well off, because he is not getting the market value, but the market price for the existing use. It will not come under the old compensation terms of the Acquisition of Land Act, 1919—the market value as between a willing buyer and willing seller—but it will be the restricted value under the terms of the new Clause we accepted in Committee. Therefore, it will not be any great inducement to the owner to come along. There will be no glittering prize here. He will have to take a very modest value. In spite of that, we ought to give the owner the power to compel a local authority, at the earliest possible moment, to take over his house, or farm, his base of operations, his factory, or his shop, after this cloud of designation has been hanging over him for many years.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: I beg to second the Amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) referred to this honest attempt by the Government to meet us, and asked the right hon. Gentleman to make it more


honest by accepting this Amendment. I should have thought that our modest attempt is too modest, because it leaves this period of uncertainty hanging over the individual who has had his land or property designated, for an extremely long time. One of the grave anxieties from which this country is suffering at the present moment is the cloud of uncertainties, some of greater magnitude than others, such as whether we are to get our coal, attain our exports and dollars, and so on.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid that we shall not get through this Bill tonight if we allow such departures from this Clause. The hon. and gallant Member cannot be allowed to introduce matter not relevant.

Colonel Hutchison: I had no intention of expatiating on that, but wished merely to show that here was another uncertainty, admittedly a minor one compared with the enormities we have to face in other directions. Under this new Clause, a man will not know whether his property or land is to be taken away from him at the end of the day—in one case it is 12 years, and in the other case eight years—of whether it will be handed back to him. Let us take the case of the owner of a timber yard. He finds that his timber yard is within a designated area. For 12 years he will not know whether he has to equip himself with another timber yard, or whether it will be handed back to him at the end of the day. The Joint Under-Secretary said on another Clause that the new towns corporations may take more land than they may ultimately find necessary.
So the chances are very real that individuals will find themselves in a designated area, and will not know whether they will have their asset refused or whether it will be taken. That puts people into an intolerable position. I do not know if Members opposite realise the paraphernalia which has to be gone through if a farmer wishes to turn his farm into a "T.T." farm. New buildings have to be put up and all sorts of regulations observed. Is there any chance that the farmer will take those steps when he does not know whether his farm will be taken from him or left with him? This is a modest attempt to improve the Clause. I, personally, would have liked to go much

further. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the Government are unable to make up their minds, in five or seven years, whether they will need these assets, this land, or not? If so, that is not the streamlined Socialist legislation which the people have been looking for from this Government.

Mr. Westwood: I have listened carefully to the arguments which have been submitted in favour of the Amendment and which admitted, in principle, that there must be a number of years of uncertainty. I admit that designation might lead to some uncertainty. The only issue between us is as to the number of years. Designation has an advantage, but I am prepared to admit that it has certain disadvantages. We are now dealing with long-term planning for Scotland, and in that planning there must some uncertainty for some people. Designation has an advantage in that it limits the uncertainty by making it clear that the land is to be compulsorily acquired within a certain time, although some people might suffer disadvantages through the designation of their land. It has been proposed that instead of 12 years and eight years there should be substituted seven years and five years respectively. Designation is intended to cover a programme of development for 10 years ahead, and it is known to Members who took part in the Standing Committee proceedings that at the five-year point the plan has to be reviewed, a process which will take several months to complete. So the 12-year period will correspond roughly with the completion of the second review of the plan.
If the 12-year period is reduced to seven years, and the eight years is reduced to five, local authorities will be most reluctant to designate land and the whole purpose of designation will be defeated. There is no lack of initiative or inability on the part of the Government to make up their minds in this matter. The local authorities will be designating the land, not the Secretary of State for Scotland. They must have some time in which to carry through their work. I thought I had gone a reasonable distance to meet the points which were discussed in Committee, and I trust that the Amendment will not be pressed to a Division. If it is, I must ask the House to reject it.

5.45 P.m.

Commander Galbraith: The right hon. Gentleman told us that he has accepted the principle, but the principle can be so watered down that it is not worth anything at all, which is about, the position we have come to here now. To suggest that local authorities, having made their plans, require two periods of five years to think out modifications, seems to be stretching things a little too far. If they consider the plans carefully to start with —as they will—then have another consideration of it after five years, and then be allowed a further two years, and the land is not then required for any purpose, surely they have had sufficient time. Agricultural land will be nearer the outside than the other land, and five years should be sufficient to enable local authorities to decide whether they want the land. Local authorities are quite capable of working within a reasonable time, and I could not follow the right hon. Gentleman when he said that if they were to get only seven years they would not be willing to designate. Why not? They have a right and duty to do that. The term of uncertainty should be as short as possible, and unless the right hon. Gentleman is willing to think again I must advise my hon. Friends behind me to divide the House.

Mr. C. Williams: So that we can have some guidance on this matter, I think we should be told by the Government whether they put in the English Bill the seven and five years, or eight years?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not dealing with the English Bill, but with the Scottish Bill.

Mr. Williams: I would not dream of dealing with the English Bill now, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but when there is a Scottish Bill which covers the same point as an English Bill I think we are entitled to know whether the balance is the same. Am I right?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is out of Order. The Secretary of State for Scotland is not concerned with the English Bill.

Mr. Williams: Perhaps we might get some guidance from the Government. It would seem to me as well to have the shorter period, because that would tend to make local authorities hasten in making up their minds.

Question put, "That twelve stand part of the proposed Clause."

The House divided: Ayes. 214. Noes, 96.

Division No. 297.]
AYES.
[5.51 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Chetwynd, G. R
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Cluse, W. S.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Cobb, F. A.
Gilzean, A.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Cocks, F. S.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)


Allighan, Garry
Collindridge, F
Gooch, E. G.


Alpass, J. H.
Collins, V. J.
Goodrich, H. E.


Attewell, H. C
Comyns, Dr. L
Gordon-Walker, P. C.


Austin, H. Lewis
Cove, W. G
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)


Ayles, W. H.
Crossman, R. H. S
Grenfell, D. R.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Daggar, G.
Grierson, E.


Balfour, A.
Daines, P.
Griffiths, Rt Hon. J. (Llanelly)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A J
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Gunter, R. J.


Barstow, P. G.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Haire, John E (Wycombe)


Barton, G.
Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hale, Leslie


Battley, J. R
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hall, W. G.


Bechervaise, A. E
Deer, G.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R


Berry, H.
Diamond, J
Hardy, E. A.


Beswick, F.
Dodds, N. N.
Harrison, J.


Bing, G H C.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Herbison, Miss M


Blyton, W. R.
Dumpleton, C. W
Hicks, G


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Durbin, E. F. M.
Hobson, C. R.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p Exch'ge)
Dye, S.
Holman, P


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Edelman, M.
Hoy, J.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Hubbard, T.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Hudson, J. H.(Ealing, W.)


Buchanan, G.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Burke, W. A.
Farthing, W J.
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W)


Callaghan, James
Follick, M.
Irving, W. J


Champion, A. J
Foot, M. M.
Janner, B.


Chater, D
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Jay, D.P.T




Jeger, G (Winchester)
Parker, J.
Swingler, S.


Jeger, Dr. S. W (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Parkin, B. T.
Sylvester, G. O.


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Symonds, A. L.


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Pearson, A.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Keenan, W.
Peart, T. F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Key, C. W
Piratin, P.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Kinley, J.
Popplewell, E.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Kirby, B. V
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Lang, G.
Randall, H. E
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Ranger, J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Leslie, J. R.
Rankin, J
Thurtle, Ernest


Levy, B. W.
Rees-Williams, D. R
Tiffany, S.


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Reeves, J,
Ungoed-Thomas, L


Lipton, Lt.-Col M
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Vernon, Maj. W. F


McAdam, W.
Robens, A.
Viant, S. P.


McAllister, G.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Wadsworth, G


McEntee, V La T
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Walkden, E.


McGhee, H. G
Rogers, G. H. R.
Walker, G. H.


Mack, J. D.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Royle, C.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Scollan, T.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Maclean, N. (Govan)
Scott-Elliot, W.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Shackleton, E. A. A
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Sharp, Granville
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Shurmer, P.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Mathers, G.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Wigg, Col. G E


Mellish, R. J.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Wilkins, W. A.


Messer, F.
Simmons, C. J.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Skeffington, A. M.
Willey, O G.(Cleveland)


Mikardo, Ian
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C
Williams, J. L (Kelvingrove)


Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R
Skinnard, F. W.
Williams, W. R.(Heston)


Mitchison, G. R.
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Willis, E.


Monslow, W.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Moody, A. S.
Snow, Capt. J. W.
Wyatt, W.


Morgan, Dr. H. B
Solley, L. J.
Yates, V. F.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Sorensen, R. W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Mort, D. L
Sparks, J. A.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Moyle, A.
Stamford, W.



Nally, W.
Stephen, C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Nicholls, H R (Stratford)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon P. J. (Derby)
Stubbs, A. E
Mr Hannan.


Orbach, M.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith





NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr P. G.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscoun.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Mollis, M. C.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Anderson, Rt. Hon. Sir J (Scot. Univ.)
Hope, Lord J.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O


Assheton, Rt. Hon R.
Howard, Hon. A.
Pickthorn, K.


Astor, Hon. M.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr N. J
Ponsonby, Col. C. E


Baldwin, A. E.
Hurd, A.
Rayner, Brig. R


Baxter, A. B
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Beamish, Maj T. V. M
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Birch, Nigel
Joynson-Hicks, Hon L. W.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Boothby, R.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Ropner, Col. L.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Lambert, Hon. G.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J G
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Smithers, Sir W.


Challen, C.
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Strauss, H. G (English Universities)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Macdonald, Sir P.(I of Wight)
Studholme, H. G.


Crowder, Capt. John E
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Sutcliffe, H.


Darling, Sir W. Y
MacLeod, J.
Taylor, C. S.(Eastbourne)


Drewe, C.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Eccles, D. M.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Eden, Rt. Hon A.
Manningham-Butler, R. E.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Marples, A. E.
Turton, R. H.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Marsden, Capt. A
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Martin, J. H
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D
Mathers, G
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Mellor, Sir J.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Grant, Lady
Molson, A. H. E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gridley, Sir A.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)



Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Neven-Spence, Sir B
Major Conant and Major Ramsay.


Headlam, Lieut-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Nicholson, G

Clause added to the Bill.

6.0 p.m.

CLAUSE 1.—(The Central Land Board.)

Mr. Westwood: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out Subsection (2), and to insert:
(2) The Board shall have an office in Scotland and shall maintain there such staff as may be necessary for the proper performance of their functions under this Act.
If it meets with your approval, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and with that of the House, it might be convenient if we discussed at the same time the next Amendment on the Order Paper, in the name of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, in page 1, line 11, leave out, "have an office," and insert:
appoint a Committee for Scotland which shall consist of members of the Board, not less than three in number, who shall reside in Scotland, and the Board may delegate, subject to such restriction or conditions as they think fit, any of their functions to the Committee so appointed and the office of the Committee shall be.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: My hon. Friends and I have no objection to these two Amendments being discussed together.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The second Amendment has not been selected.

Mr. Westwood: The Amendment which 1 have moved is designed to comply with an undertaking which I gave in Committee that I would consider the wording of Clause 1 with a view to making it clear that the Scottish office of the Board would handle the ordinary run of Scottish business without reference to the headquarters of the Board in England. I take this opportunity of pointing out that in carrying through their work in Scotland the Board will be under the instructions of the Secretary of State for Scotland and not the Minister of Town and Country Planning who will be responsible for giving instructions as regards the operations of the Board in England. We have not yet determined the precise number to be appointed to the Board, a matter which is still under consideration, but we have decided that the Board shall include at least two representatives from Scotland. These members, of course, will be available for consultation as necessary by the Board's Scottish staff. I suggest that by these arrangements the Amendment would achieve what we all want—namely that Scotland should have a real say in the policy of the Board and that Scottish busi-

ness should be handled expeditiously from the Board's offices in Scotland.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I rind it very disappointing that after a considerable interval the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to be any more definite than he has been. To begin with, to take the words of the Amendment, all that he seeks to do is to leave out a provision under which the Board were to have had an office in Scotland and to substitute a provision that they shall have an office in Scotland and shall maintain a staff there. I should have thought that it was a very odd thing to have an office without a staff, and therefore it seems to me that the Amendment adds absolutely nothing to what is in the Bill already. We frequently express the view that on important matters of this character we ought to have something in black and white in the Bill, and ought not to be dependent on the mere assurance of a Minister who may or may not survive for a long time, and who may be followed by some one with different views. Even assuming that the right hon. Gentleman's views will continue to be held by his successors for all time to come—or at least until we have an opportunity of putting the matter right— what has he said? All that he has told us is that the Edinburgh office is to handle the ordinary run of business and that two members of the Board will be available in Scotland for consultation—not that the two members of the Board will be stationed at Edinburgh and will themselves conduct the business. Of course he has not said that, because if it were so, they would be absent from the Board in London and would really cease to be members of the Board at all.
Unless we have a committee or a subdivision of the Board sitting in Edinburgh it necessarily implies that all policy questions which have to come up to the level of decision by the Board must be decided in London. If we are only to have individual members of the Board who are kind enough to travel to Edinburgh and explain to the Edinburgh officials the decisions which they have taken on the Board in London, that is falling a very long way short of having a body in Scotland with executive powers. The Secretary of State has said that he has power to give directions, but he has pointedly refrained from saying what directions he intends to give.
I do not think that it would be possible under the Bill as it stands, for the Secretary of State to give the only direction that would satisfy me, at least—namely, that Scottish members of the Board, sitting in Scotland, shall decide all such Scottish questions as do not require joint decision from the United Kingdom. That cannot be done by direction, because if there is no provision for the Board setting up an executive department or committee in Scotland then all Board decisions must be taken in England. The Secretary of State describes the position accurately when he says that there can only be members of the Board proceeding from the boardroom to Scotland to explain to Scottish officials what the Board have decided or think about a question. There is, therefore, a very sharp conflict in principle between the two views.
Is the business to be conducted in Scotland only the ordinary run of business? That is to say, is it to be only the routine carrying out of policy decisions reached in London, or is to be the actual executive decision on all such questions as do not require joint action between the Boards of the two countries? The right hon. Gentleman has some experience of forestry, for example, where there is one organisation sitting in two parts, one of which is responsible to the Minister in England and the other to him. I cannot see how, as a matter of practice, a board sitting in London can at the same time obey directions from two different Ministers, and it necessarily follows that so far as general questions are concerned the Secretary of State will not be able to give directions to a board sitting in London. All he will be able to do is to give his directions as to what the Edinburgh people are to do once they have received the London decision on principle. That seems to us to be wholly unacceptable.
I cannot understand—and the Secretary of State has not given one word of explanation—why he will not allow a separate Scottish Committee at least, if he will not allow a separate Scottish Board. I should have thought that the conditions in the two countries and the legal and other questions which arise were so different as to make it essential that anybody, dealing with Scottish questions should have a pretty free hand, and that

is quite impossible under the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman He says, "Well, we may have two people who may consult." I suppose one comes down one week and one another. Scotland will not be fobbed off with something of that kind if we can prevent it, and therefore I am bound to say that I think that Scotland has been extremely shabbily treated in this matter, and that the method which the Secretary of State insists upon inserting into this Bill will merely lead to delay and frustration and to decisions being taken not on special knowledge of Scotland and of Scottish conditions but on a view which may be prevalent in London 400 miles away. The result in practice at the end of the day will be extremely unsatisfactory.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The concession which we have had today from the Secretary of State is an example of how concessions have to be wrung from the Government by sheer hard work in this matter of town and country planning. It reminded me that when the English Bill was first introduced it covered Scotland in only two respects—in the fact that there was a Central Board for England and Scotland and there was a certain global sum of £300 million which was divided between England and Wales on the one hand and Scotland on the other as compensation for loss of rights. I had the honour to be a member of Standing Committee D which in detail examined the English Bill, and I further had the honour of moving in it—and, if I may say so, I think this is strictly in Order—that there should be a separate land board for Scotland, the point about which we are speaking here.
I was astonished to have a statement from the Minister in charge of the Bill that at no period had any Minister representing Scottish interests ever asked for a separate board or a separate committee for Scotland. That seemed to be a most extraordinary thing—so extraordinary that my right hon. and hon. Friends put down an Amendment in the Scottish Committee to secure that we could have a separate committee in Scotland if we could not have a separate land board. That was refused, and now at last on the Report stage we have had an announcement made by the Secretary of State, not in the form of an Amendment, but an announcement on the Amendment on the Order Paper, that there will be at least two members


of the Board who will concern themselves with Scottish matters. It does seem to me that this is an extraordinary way of going about the administration of Scottish affairs.
We have in this Bill a complete planning code. We have everything necessary to deal with the development of town and country in Scotland, except that we have to go to a Board sitting in Whitehall. It has got at least three things to do. It has to allocate to Scotland a share of the £300 million compensation for loss of development rights; it has to examine individual claims from Scottish owners of lands and buildings who consider that they have lost development value; and it has to adjudicate between them how much they are to receive. It has, in the second place, to assess development charges. When landowners in Scotland want to develop their land they have to go to an English Board sitting in Whitehall to have the development charges assessed and determined. Finally, this Board has, under one of the Clauses of the Bill, to act as a middleman in holding land which has been compulsorily acquired, and reselling it with the addition of the development charge. All of these functions should, in our view, be undertaken by a board of Scotsmen sitting in Edinburgh. There is no need to allow these peculiarly intimate Scottish matters to be determined by Englishmen in London, and it is scandalous that Scotland should be treated in this way. All we can get is this concession that two members of the Board of nine, who will give their consent to matters determined by the Board, should come from Scotland. It is a disgraceful way to deal with this matter.

6.15 p.m.

Sir William Darling: I share the feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) in this matter. I am profoundly disappointed that the Secretary of State should bring forward such a tenuous proposal before this House. We hope that we will convince our English friends that we have a very considerable case irrespective of party. I would remind the House that the problem of the redevelopment of Scotland is not a problem which can well be solved from an office in Edinburgh with one or two persons. In England there are 59,000

square miles to develop and in Scotland there are 33,000 square miles to develop, which is nearly half, I admit, but surely every Scotsman will agree, as will Englishmen, that there is a much greater field of development in Scotland than there is in England, and, on business grounds, we should have something more than a small office to deal with what is half of the amount of land to be developed in these islands.
If that development of land were an industry, it would not be effectively carried out from what is described as an office. What kind of an office has the Secretary of State in view? He has not condescended to give us any details. Is it a postal box or a box number, because that is what the proposal indicates to me that it may very well be? It seems to me that it is a matter of business arrangement, but if the object of this Bill is only to make provision for the development of Scotland on a semi-effective basis—

Mr. Hector Hughes: The hon. Member has asked what kind of an office this is and whether it is to be a post box. Obviously, he has not read the Amendment, because it says:
The Board shall have an office in Scotland and shall maintain there such staff as may be necessary for the proper performance of this function under this Act.

Sir W. Darling: A post box, I should inform the hon. and learned Gentleman, might well be just exactly what he describes.

Mr. Hughes: Could it contain a staff?

Sir W. Darling: It could be one or two persons directing and redirecting letters. If you ask the Postmaster-General, he will inform you what a post box is, but if you do not wish to approach your right hon. Friend, buy yourself a copy of the Post Office Guide and you will see it there described for yourself.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is very kind of the hon. Gentleman to recommend me to do something with which I am not concerned.

Sir W. Darling: I am sorry, but the advice was intended for and necessary for the hon. and learned Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes). He might well consult the Postmaster-General and the Post Office Guide and learn something in regard to a post box. I should


like to ask the Secretary of State to elaborate his views as to what kind of an office this will be. I would be satisfied with an office of the same type and magnitude as the Department of Agriculture in Scotland. I would be satisfied with the example of separating education in Scotland from education in England. I think it would be quite in order if the Secretary himself looked after town and country planning as he has looked after other Departments. I would be satisfied if the office would deal with planning in the same way as the Scottish Office deals with health and housing in Scotland. There is nothing in the Bill to indicate what kind of an office it is, or if it would be an office of the character which 1 have described. I am inclined to think that the Bill enables the Secretary of State—I am impressed more by his modesty than his manliness—to carry out the statute by asking two or three persons to be in an office somewhere in Scotland. The Amendment does not even say that the office is to be in the capital of Scotland The Secretary of State may take it down to one of the new towns, shortly to be baptized after him by name. That might very well be within the scope of the Amendment, which is quite unnecessary
This Bill is an important Measure, with a far-reaching effect on our fives. To relegate it, and to delegate it, to a minor office somewhere in Scotland is not seriously meeting the situation. I have said before that the Secretary of State for Scotand suffers from a quality from which I do not suffer myself, and therefore I can identify it more easily in others. He suffers from an overweening modesty and a simplicity of character, which may be commendable in private life but are detestable in public life. He should acquire a greater degree—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member knows very well that what he is now saying is far away from the subject of the Amendment.

Sir W. Darling: I am grateful, Sir, for your guidance, but I should have thought, upon a proposal to set up an office—and I was speaking to that proposal—I should be entitled to refer to the office director or managing director and his personnel. I was saying that the office manager has many outstanding

eminent qualities, but that in this direction he has taken an over-mean conception of—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: In that direction the hon. Member is going too far from the purpose of the Amendment to be permitted in this discussion.

Sir W. Darling: Well, I will return to a place nearer home, where I hope at least I shall not be out of Order, and that is Whitehall. I will return to Whitehall, which is the place from which the operations of the proposed office will be directed. In Whitehall, the Scottish Office has a significant place. In Whitehall, they executed a Scottish king.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member had better get away from Whitehall and back to the Amendment.

Sir W. Darling: I will get away from it very readily. There, they executed a Scottish king—these are my last words, Sir—and I am afraid that other Scottish interests will be executed in Whitehall, and that the office which is offered to us somewhere in Scotland will give no satisfaction to the people of Scotland.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) has referred to this Amendment as embodying a concession, but I cannot see much about it in the way of a concession. There is additional provision for a staff, but I should have thought that one of the first things the Board would do would be to make sure there was a staff in Scotland

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: What I said was that in proposing his Amendment the Secretary of State announced, as a concession, that we are to have two members on the Central Board who will represent Scottish interests.

Mr. Macpherson: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend. His intervention clarifies the point, but I still feel that there is no concession in the Amendment. If there is to be a staff in Scotland, it seems to exclude the possibility of any kind of committee or board. The staff will be employees. What was suggested from this side of the House was that there should at least be a committee, but I do not see why there should not be a board. I cannot see


why the Secretary of State for Scotland should not have pressed for a separate board. We have learned that the Lord Chancellor in another place did not object to it, and I see no objection to it. I see no reason why there should not be two boards. The right hon. Gentleman himself said what he will do. He will give instructions to the office. In other words, he will become a sort of branch manager. He will give instructions to the office, but the principal instruction will obviously have been laid down by the Central Land Board, on the instructions of the Minister of Town and Country Planning.

Mr. Westwood: I would direct the hon. Member's attention to the fact that instructions to the Central Land Board are to be given by the Minister of Town and Country Planning, and the Secretary of State for Scotland. I will be inferior to no one in connection with this matter.

Mr. Macpherson: I quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to take a full part in promoting the welfare of Scotland, but we say that he will not be in a position to do so. After all, he will not represent anything like the same population as will the Minister of Town and Country Planning, who is to give the broad directives to the Central Land Board. At best he will be the junior partner. Subsection (3) says:
The Board shall, in the performance of their functions under this Act, comply with such directions as may be given to them by the Secretary of State.
Are the Board to receive two separate sets of instructions, one for England and the other for Scotland? If so, why have one single board? There should be two boards. If, on the other hand, the whole object of having one Central Land Board is that there should be uniformity of policy throughout the country, obviously it is the Minister of Town and Country Planning who will give the instructions, and not the Secretary of State for Scotland. Therefore, the Amendment is wholly unacceptable. We are in this Bill establishing a broad new principle. The Bill represents possibly the greatest amendment in the law of land tenure for a very long time. No one can say how far-reaching this change will be. Surely, we should bring it into line with past procedure, and have different beards for England and Scotland

to deal with the different land system. It is wholly unacceptable that we should be fobbed off with a sub-office and a staff to run it.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: It has after been our habit to describe Scotland as being in the position of an office boy to the managing director, England. Now it is proposed to set up an office for the office boy. The trumpery Amendment which the Secretary of State puts forward today is an insult to Scotland. I am surprised that no Scottish Member on the other side who is really interested in Scottish affairs has stood up to say so.

Sir W. Darling: Not yet; give them time.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I certainly think that no one interested in Scottish affairs would consider that Scottish interests are being properly met. Of all the things which are bad in this thoroughly bad Bill, the Central Land Board is the most disastrous, from the point of view of Scotland. It is not the least bit of good for the Secretary of State for Scotland to say that he will fight for Scotland and that everything will be all fight. We have heard that promise about several other Bills which have gone through this House, and we know where Scotland has gone as the result of them. There is not much chance of the right hon. Gentleman getting his way over the other seven members of the Board who are to say what shall be done. It is tragic that we should have to put up with an Amendment like this and be told that it is a concession which will do all that is necessary for Scotland. It is an absolute travesty of government for Scotland.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: I take a very definite view with regard to Scotland's place in legislation. After listening to this discussion, I cannot see that there is any material difference between what is proposed by the Government and what is proposed by the Opposition. There is a Central Land Board which is to be responsible for general policy throughout the United Kingdom. Hon. Members above the Gangway suggest that there should be a committee of that Board in Scotland under the direction of the Central Land Board. If that committee is to be under the


direction of the Central Land Board, I cannot see that there is any fundamental difference between the two sides in this matter. With the Minister of Town and Country Planning, the Secretary of State for Scotland is giving instructions to the Central Land Board, and in doing so he will be seeing that the particular circumstances of Scotland are adequately dealt with. Having listened to what hon. Members said about Scottish interests, the Government are seeking in their Amendment to make it plain that this office in Scotland will be a very responsible one with a full administration in Scotland for carrying out this Bill.

Sir W. Darling: Why do they not say so?

Mr. Stephen: The hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) asks why they do not say so. Let me read the Amendment:
The Board shall have an office in Scotland and shall maintain there such staff as may be necessary for the proper performance of their functions under this Act.

Sir W. Darling: What are those functions?

Mr. Stephen: The administration of the town planning programme which the Government have put forward. Those words give the hon. Member exactly what he said would satisfy him—a fully responsible administrative office in Scotland for the co-ordination of this work. My own point of view is that we shall never get proper planning in Scotland until we have a separate Scottish legislature. I do not think that my hon. Friends above the Gangway would help me to get that, but that is the point of view I take.

Sir W. Darling: Does the hon. Member visualise an office of the same character as the Offices for Education, Agriculture and Health, with a permanent secretary.

Mr. Speaker: That is another question.

Mr. Stephen: I do not know whether there will be a full permanent secretary, but I am quite sure that the office will be very important—

Sir W. Darling: What about the status?

Mr. Stephen: —with full status for carrying through this policy. The words

of the Amendment can mean nothing else except that this will be a responsible office which will meet the needs of Scotland in this respect. I wish, however, that, instead of giving us this Measure, the Government had given us a Measure for Scottish Home Rule.

Mr. McKie: I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) that there is no substantial difference between this Amendment and the one which will not now be called. I am very disappointed at the manner in which the Secretary of State for Scotland submitted his Amendment. He seemed somewhat unhelpful. This point is vital to Scottish interests. In Committee the Secretary of State expressed himself as fully seized of the matter, and I should like to recall the actual words in which he resisted a similar Amendment upstairs. He said:
I am entirely in agreement with the statement that has been made that we require more than an office in Scotland, and I have tried to keep that in my mind in all the discussions in which I have taken part in seeking to frame the Bill now before the Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee on Scottish Bills, 17th April, 1947; c 13.]
If the Secretary of State really thought and felt that, he has not done very much this afternoon to make good the intentions he told us he had in mind in Committee and to which he promised he would give effect on the Report stage. He has proposed only that the office shall be enlarged so as to ensure that there shall be an adequate secretarial staff always there, but that goes no way towards ensuring that there shall be permanently in Scotland, not employees of the Board, but people of independent mind and judgment, having special knowledge and care for the interests of Scotland, who shall decide questions relating to the very special interests of Scotland when they come up for decision before the Central Land Board as a whole. The land area of Scotland is rather more than one-third of the United Kingdom, and there is, possibly, more litigation over land questions in Scotland than over any other matter. Surely, the Secretary of State for Scotland realises that it will be impossible to deal with Scottish land interests by the mere addition of these words regarding the secretarial staff. Independent people with special knowledge of land tenure and agriculture as prac-


tised in Scotland should be permanently in Scotland for this purpose. There is nothing in the Amendment to ensure that.
We are setting up a great new landlord in Scotland. A lot has been said about the smaller landlords of Scotland in the past. I should have thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite would have sympathised with the spirit underlying our fears and would have supported us, if necessary, in the Division Lobby, against the Secretary of State for Scotland, not on the grounds that this Amendment is in itself contrary to Scottish interests, but from the point of view that it does nothing at all to ensure that there shall be permanently in Scotland, people with special knowledge of land tenure and agricultural conditions.

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) informed the House that he could see no difference whatsoever between what the Government proposed and what the Opposition proposed.

Mr. Stephen: No fundamental difference.

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt realise that in view of the Financial Resolution, it would have been completely out of order for us to put an Amendment on the Order Paper to deal with the solution which we put forward—a separate board. What do the Government give us in this Amendment? The Board will have an office and a staff. Arc any decisions to be taken there, and, if so, what? That is the real point at which we want to arrive. It is no good having an office and a staff unless one has someone there in a position to make decisions, and that does not seem to come from the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. Would the Under-Secretary be good enough to tell the House what functions this staff will perform. I do not know what they are, and I am quite certain that very few hon. Members could say what they are.

Mr. Rankin: The Central Land Board is chiefly a revenue collecting body.

Mr. Stephen: If the hon. and gallant Member will give way to me, may I ask him this: if there were a committee of the Central Board there under instructions, how would they be able to give decisions,

any more than one of the permanent officials who would be in the office?

Commander Galbraith: If there were a separate committee sitting in Edinburgh, they would be able to deal with everything that came within these principles and take decisions. These matters could quite well be passed over to them. I want to know who is to take decisions? Is every decision to be taken in England, or is there to be someone in this office in Edinburgh to make decisions so far as Scotland is concerned? Unless we can get absolute clarity on that point and be convinced that there is to be some person or persons in Scotland who can take decisions on their own, without referring every matter to England, then we shall require to divide against this Amendment.

Mr. Westwood: If I may, I will reply briefly to the points raised Certainly the decisions will be taken by the Board. It is perfectly true that the Board may be sitting in London, but on that Board of, shall I say, seven—because that is what I have roughly in mind—there has been no final determination as to the number—Scotland will have its two representatives. When the decisions are arrived at, there may be, in the application, principles which will be common to both countries. Incidentally, I have over-run the point that the decisions will be made by the Minister of Town and Country Planning and the Secretary of State jointly, and in the operation of the Board in Scotland, the Board will be under the instruction not of the two Ministers but of the one only, the Secretary of State for Scotland. He is the one who will be empowered to give instructions in the operation of their work inside Scotland.
I have all along resisted the idea of two boards. The Central Land Board will be dealing with principles of valuation common both to England and Scotland, and in amplifying what was already in the Bill by the Amendment I have moved I thought I was meeting some of the points raised in Committee that it would only be a post box, that it would only be an office boy, and charges of that kind. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite did not seem to understand in Committee that when one used the. Term "office," it meant the necessary staff to carry through the work, and the pledge I gave the Committee was that I would seek to amplify that, and


the Amendment now before the House does so and guarantees that there will be an adequate staff to carry on the day to day administrative work in Scotland. One of the functions will be the distributing of Scotland's share of the £300 million available to the United Kingdom. Any proposals for the constitution of a separate Board or, indeed, for a separate Scottish Committee of the Board, would imply that the Board or the Committee might proceed on entirely different principles in Scotland. That I am not prepared to accept; that I am resisting, and that I will continue to resist because I think it cannot be to the advantage of Scotland when we are dealing with general problems of valuation or of revenue or of the collecting of the moneys necessary in connection with the development charges.

Commander Galbraith: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer one question before he sits down? He referred to the division of the £300 million. What we are particularly anxious to know is this. When planning permission is asked for, and that necessarily involves a development charge, is the decision to be given

in Scotland or has it to go to England in every case to be decided?

Mr. Westwood: I have already decided that when the general principles are accepted, the administration of those principles—particularly in view of the fact that Scotland has a distinct system of land tenure as compared with England—will be under the instructions of the Secretary of State. That is what I set out to achieve. If anyone says I did not, they are wrong. I will argue for what I think is right on the part of Scotland; if I am wrong, it will be for this House to turn it down and, ultimately, for the country to turn it down, but I am sure that will be a long time ahead. I am perfectly sure that the proposal now before the House is all to the advantage of Scotland, giving me what I set out to achieve, and I hope the House now will accept the Amendment.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes. 223; Noes, 95.

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, at the end to insert:
(4) The report made by the Board for any year under Section two of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, shall set out any direction given by the Secretary of State to the Board during that year unless the Secretary of State has notified to the Board his

opinion that it is against the national interest so to do.
This Amendment means that it is incumbent on the Central Land Board to set out any arrangements come to during the year at the direction of the Secretary of State, unless they are quite definitely


informed by the Secretary of State that in his opinion it is not in the public interest to do so.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I do not object to there being disclosure of directions but I do object very strongly to the Secretary of State having power to suppress some directions on such vague grounds as "the national interest." When we are dealing with security considerations, the Armed Forces, or something which affects foreign countries, or as in the Health Bill when we were dealing with information premature disclosure of which might be extremely hurtful to certain people who are rather hypochondriacal, I consider there is a need for concealment of certain matters. But I cannot imagine a possible class of direction with regard to anything which happens under this Bill, which it is contrary to the national or public interest to disclose. I hope that whoever replies will tell us the kind of case they have in mind. Then, possibly at a later stage, we can get a more restricted word to cover it.
The national interest may appear quite different to people on different sides of the House. A Secretary of State may some day consider it in the national interest that his party shall remain in power, and not be discredited, and therefore take the view that some direction, publication of which he thought might bring his party into discredit, ought not to be disclosed in the national interest. That is a process of argument which might very easily be followed. There is no check, and if a Secretary of State took it upon himself to do that, no one would ever know. We had an argument about this subject on the National, Health Bill and it was pointed out that there were a number of people serving part-time on that body, and if they thought that the Secretary of State was misusing his power they could say so. But here we are dealing with a small body, the Central Land Board, everyone of whom is indebted to the Government in one form or another, and however much a member of that Board may feel that the Secretary of State's direction is bad, he will have too great a personal inducement to allow him to open his mouth, and there will never be any disclosure of a suppressed direction.

People will then begin to wonder whether the Board—who have been acting in a very political way—have been influenced by some underhand direction which the Secretary of State has decided to suppress. There is no doubt that that sort of thing will get about. It may be that no responsible person in this House, and no responsible person outside, would say it, but some irresponsible people would say it, and it is very wrong that they should have an opportunity of saying it. I hope we shall be told what the Government have in mind; that they agree that this limitation is not necessary, and that Amendments will be introduced to make certain that everything is square and above board, and all directions are published.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that this might be used for a party purpose, but as I read the words, not being a lawyer, that would not be the case, because it says, "in the national interest." Certainly, a party interest, as I understand it, would not be described as the public interest. This is a provision which has been in many other enactments If I am asked what I am guarding against, I say frankly, "Nothing at all at the moment, other than that in other enactments similar to this one, this power has been taken by all Cabinets and Governments in the past, in case an emergency arises in which the public interest may be involved." We are doing nothing more than has been done over a long period of years. If I am asked whether we propose to use this Subsection now, my answer is definitely and decidedly, "No. 'We take this power for one reason only, namely, that a set of conditions may arise in the future in which, in the national interest and the public interest, such a direction should not be stated in the Board's report

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The Joint Under-Secretary of State has given us a pathetic and inept reply. He says, "I do not want this power for use now. I am thinking of the future, of some terrible thing ahead." By that I presume he means, for example, war. If a Government were to find themselves in the middle of an emergency, in which they need special powers, the hon. Gentleman


knows as well as I do that this House would give the Government all the emergency powers they wanted in a matter of a few hours. Therefore, this proposal is pure humbug. If a Government require powers in an emergency, they can get them. If the Government do not need any such power as this what right have they to ask for it? Let us consider the case of the small man. There will be tens of thousands of small claims upon this Board. The small man will come to the Board, which will issue a decision. Who is the dominating character in the Board? The Secretary of State says that the Board acting in Scotland takes its orders from him. Therefore, he is the boss. This little man makes his claim and is turned down; he loses all his possessions, his land or his property for a mere pittance, or he is obliged to pay a heavy development fee.

Mr. Buchanan: That is not an issue raised by this Amendment. All that is raised is that there will be an annual report published, and any direction which has been given by the Secretary of State must be published in that report, unless it is not in the public interest to do so.

Mr. Stewart: That bears on the case of a small man whose appeal is turned down by the Board and who applies to his lawyer for help His lawyer looks at all the published regulations and advises him that there is nothing in them to cause the Board to come to that decision. The man goes to law. But is it then disclosed that the Board is working under the secret direction? Apparently not. Is that justice? Are we to hold in this country that Ministers are to act on secret powers which not even a court can discover? It is rank Hitlerism—[Laughter.] No wonder hon. Members of the Labour Party laugh. They want rule by central direction, but this country has not fought and won the war for that; it has done so to defend the essential liberty and law of our land, which is that rules and directions issued by Parliament, and by Ministers through Parliament, shall be given the fullest public notice. Since that is not ensured here, we must oppose this Amendment.

Mr. Buchanan: What is involved here is not the small man but merely the directions of the Secretary of State. He gives broad general directions Long

before I held office this provision was in the hands of Governments with which the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) was associated. If the theory be that Governments with which he has been associated can be trusted with this power but this Government cannot, I strongly reject it.

Mr. Stewart: The Joint Under-Secretary of State has offered a challenge. Let me throw it back. Let him give the House a single example of an Act before the war comparable to this Measure in which such a secret power was taken. I say there is no such Act.

Mr. Buchanan: Oh, yes, there is.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman must give us an answer—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak He is not entitled to speak again.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Like my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) I think that the statement of the Joint Under-Secretary is deplorable. It is accepting, in principle, pure Hitlerism. When my hon. Friend said that, hon. Members on the other side of the House laughed. So did the German Socialists when Hitler first appeared, but hon. Members know what happened to them afterwards. This is a step forward towards the totalitarian State. It is a very bad one, and I hope the House will divide against it.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The Joint Under-Secretary of State said that this provision has been included in several Bills lately. He is quite right. It has been, and in each case, I recall, it was a matter of national security which was involved. In the case of a Bill which we have just passed on to another place the Solicitor-General stated that national security was what the Government had in mind when he said, "in the national and public interest," and an Amendment was accepted substituting "national security" for "national interest." It is in that sense also that the words "national interest" have been interpreted in relation to the Civil Aviation Act, for example. Surely, the Joint Under-Secretary will tell us that he means that; that he does not mean what the Minister of Food means when he says that it is not in the national interest to disclose the prices of foreign bulk purchases.

Mr. Buchanan: That is what I mean. The only consideration here is the national interest—no personal interest, no party interest, nothing but the interest of the nation, and the interpretation of that is the one which the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) has given.

Mr. N. Macpherson: If the hon. Gentleman means "national security," cannot he put it into the Bill, in the same way as it has been put into the Electricity Bill?

Mr. Buchanan: I will look at the matter between now and the time when the Bill goes to another place I am strongly advised that these words cover the point, and that that is the only interpretation that can be placed upon the Amendment. The hon. Member for Dumfries has asked whether the national interest means what he interpreted it to mean. I say, "Yes, in its best sense, the security sense." That is all that is meant, and I am advised that that is all that would be allowed by the terms of the Amendment. I will, as I said, look at the matter again, and see if anything further is necessary on that point.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, at the end, to insert:
(5) Regulations made for the purposes of Section two of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, shall provide for requiring members of the Board who are interested in any land which is the subject of a claim or application made to the Board under this Act to disclose to the Board the nature of their interest, and may for that purpose apply any of the provisions of Section one hundred and forty-nine of the Companies Act, 1929, subject to such modifications as may be prescribed by the regulations.
This Amendment provides that under the regulations made by the Secretary of State and the Minister of Town and Country Planning, Section 149 of the Companies Act, 1929, shall apply, namely, that members of the Board will be required to disclose their interest in any land in respect of which a claim is made.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Surveys of planning districts and preparation of development plans.)

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, to leave out "commencement of this Act," and to insert "appointed
day."
As the existing planning Acts have been repealed as from the appointed day, and as the existing planning Acts system will cease to operate, it has been thought better to bring the provisions of Clause 3 into force as from the appointed day instead of from the date of the passing of the Bill. There is nothing to prevent a local authority from going ahead with this work in spite of this provision.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: It may be that, in fact, local authorities will go ahead, but I am afraid that if they read this Bill carefully, they will not go ahead. I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's reasons as being good in the case of the Amendment to line 17, where it is proposed to leave out "commencement of this Act" and to insert "appointed day." However, they are not good reasons for doing it at line 14. If this Amendment is made, the Clause will read:
As soon as may be after the appointed day, every local planning authority shall carry out a survey …
That means that they must not start until the appointed day. If the Clause is left as it stands, it reads:
As soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, every local planning authority shall carry out a survey.
Then they are not only allowed, but encouraged, to go ahead straight away. We all know that their resources in manpower and skilled assistance are limited. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would want them to get ahead at the earliest possible moment. Therefore, I should have thought he would have dropped the first Amendment, but would have insisted on the second. That would give them an extra six or nine months to conclude their job. Even with that extra time. it is very doubtful if they could do it. I suspect that some one, having seen that it was necessary to change the wording at line 17, also changed it at line 14 without a great deal of thought. I suggest that it would be very much better to drop this Amendment and to proceed with the next one.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: I think the hon. Gentleman will realise that it is a difficult matter for us to be able to assess the importance of this Amendment until we know when the appointed day is to be. If we knew when it was to be,


we could assess much more accurately the importance of this Amendment.

Mr. McAllister: I wish to support the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) in his suggestion that it is unwise to press the first Amendment. I should have thought everybody would wish these surveys to go ahead as quickly as possible. It is true, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, that there is an acute shortage of planning staff. The work of carrying out these surveys will take a very long time. The sooner they are started, the better it will be. There may be some reasons for this Amendment, but it is very difficult to discover them by reading the Clause. 1 would like the Secretary of State to give this matter further thought.

Mr. Buchanan: I have consulted the powers that be on this matter—[[Interruption.] Why should we not consult people about this?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The "powers that be."

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: What I mean is that J have consulted the officials. I should think that hon. Gentlemen opposite would do me the credit of saying that I am as little in anybody's power as any hon. Member. I have consulted the officials who guide me in these matters, and they take the view that it would be administratively difficult if this Amendment were dropped. They take the view that on the appointed day, salaries and other considerations should be fixed. This is not a political point. It is one of administration. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) said that it would help if we knew when the appointed day is to be. I will answer him quite frankly. We are working in order to make a start early in the New Year. We have not fixed a date, but it is hoped that the appointed day will be in the early part of next year. I will discuss this matter with my advisers. They advise me that it is necessary to have this wording for the purpose of uniformity in connection with salaries, etc. If the Clause were left as it is it would lead to confusion. When the Secretary of State examines this matter,

he can look at the arguments and make a decision.

Mr. McAllister: It may be that there are excellent technical and administrative reasons for this Amendment. However, might I recall the action of Lord Reith when he told the local authorities to go ahead in preparation for legislation which might follow?

Mr. Buchanan: It is our intention to circularise local authorities on this matter. If this Amendment is passed, it will not in any way preclude authorities from going ahead with the surveys as quickly as they wish. One knows that some local authorities are alleged to move too quickly, and others are alleged to move too slowly. It will be our purpose in guiding the local authorities to say that they can go on preparing their surveys long before the appointed day.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendment made.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move in page 3, line 38, to leave out from the beginning to "by," in line 40.
This Amendment is part of a series dealing with the designation of land by a development plan as land subject to compulsory acquisition. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if they were discussed together. The Amendments are in lines 41, 42 and 43 of page 3; and in lines 12, 14, and 22 of page 4. Broadly speaking, they are drafting Amendments.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: In case it is thought that the House is unanimous on this, I suggest that though we on this side of the House would not object to the Amendments in page 3 being discussed together, we would prefer those in page 4 to be taken singly, because they raise extremely important questions.

The Lord Advocate: I will take whatever is the most convenient course for hon. Members. The Amendments in page 3 hang together. They are really a redraft of this part of the Clause. I agree that hon. Members opposite have a point in regard to page 4. The first two Amendments to page 3, those dealing with lines 41 and 42, deal with the designation of land for the purpose of a Minister, local authority or statutory


undertaking. As the Clause stands, it provides that any land required by a Minister, local authority or statutory undertaker may be designated. We think that it would be better if the designation applied to land allocated by the plan for the purposes of the functions of a Minister, local authority or statutory undertaker. That is what these two Amendments provide. The Amendment to line 43 is purely drafting.
So far as page 4 is concerned, the Amendment in line 12 provides that a development plan may designate, as land subject to compulsory acquisition, land which, in the opinion of the local authority, ought to be subject to compulsory acquisition for the purpose of securing development in the manner proposed by the plan. Under the Clause as it stands, land may be designated as subject to compulsory acquisition where, in the opinion of the local authority, it is likely to require compulsory acquisition. Where land is designated, it does not necessarily follow that it will be compulsorily acquired, but, if the owner is willing to develop it in accordance with the plan, or will sell it at a reasonable price for that purpose, compulsory acquisition would obviously be unnecessary, and that is why we suggest this change as an improvement. The Amendment to line 14, I think, raises an issue in which hon. Members opposite are particularly interested. In effect, it provides a definition of the area of comprehensive development.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Reid: On a point of Order. Are we to have one discussion on all these complicated questions, because certainly, we on this side of the House do not agree to that, though we may have to put up with it?

Mr. Speaker: I was wondering how we could deal with this matter to meet the right hon. and learned Gentleman's convenience I do not know how to deal with these Amendments unless we take them separately. If we can deal with those to page 3, and then with those to page 4, I think that would be the more convenient method.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, after "undertakers,"

to insert "any land allocated by the plan."
I have dealt with this and the following two Amendments in my explanation.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: There is a matter of some importance concerned with these Amendments, and, particularly the second one. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell us what that Amendment means, because, frankly, I do not know. The drafting of Subsection (2. b) will now, I think, be as follows:
(6) designate as land subject to compulsory acquisition by any Minister, local authority or statutory undertakers, any land allocated by the plan for the purposes of any of their functions"—
So far, that is clear enough, and then, in brackets—
(including any land which that Minister of authority or those undertakers are or could be authorised to acquire compulsorily under any enactment under than this Act).
I fail to understand the purpose of that parenthesis. If it is only intended to mean that there shall not be allocated in the plan anything which a Minister could not acquire, well, that makes sense, but that is not quite what it says, and I am wondering whether it is not opening the door to an allocation of land in the plan, not on the grounds that a Minister is authorised to acquire it or because he might want it immediately, but only on the grounds that he could be authorised to acquire it. I cannot see the purpose of putting in those words, and I would ask that the inclusion of the words in parentheses should be reconsidered.
The drafting of this Subsection has now got into something of a tangle. It always did suffer from trying to compress too much into a few lines, and we very often find that, when trying to compress a lot of ideas into a few words, they do not fit very well and that the result is somewhat confusing. I think that we are here trying to put enough material for two or three Subsections into one. I hope that all that is meant is that there shall not be allocated on the plan anything that could not be compulsorily acquired. That could be one meaning, but the Subsection goes on to mix it up, and it seems to me that it may mean the designation of a great deal of land that ought not to be designated at all at that stage, and I


should be glad if the Lord Advocate could explain what the purpose of those words in parentheses really is.

The Lord Advocate: There is nothing sinister about this, I can assure the House. It is simply to make clear that, in addition to what a Minister or an authority can do under this Act, they will also be allowed to do under another Act. Its purpose is to include any land which the Minister or the authority or these undertakers are or could be authorised to acquire compulsorily under any enactment other than this Act. They are authorised to acquire compulsorily under this Act, and that is the first of its provisions. Then, they could be authorised to acquire compulsorily under any other enactment. That is really all there, is in it. In view of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, I will certainly have a look at it again, but I do assure him and the House that we are not intending to do anything but make a drafting improvement in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 3, line 42, at end, insert:
(including any land which that Minister or authority or those undertakers are or could be authorised to acquire compulsorily under any enactment other than this Act).

In line 43 leave out from beginning, to end of line 10, on page 4, and insert:
(c) designate as land subject to compulsory acquisition by the appropriate local authority—
(i) any land comprised in an area defined by the plan as an area of comprehensive development (including any land therein which is allocated by the plan for any such purpose as is mentioned in paragraph (b)of this Subsection."—[The Lord Advocate.]

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 4, line 12, to leave out, is likely to require," and to insert, "ought to be subject to."
This Amendment provides that the development plan may designate as land subject to compulsory acquisition land which, in the opinion of the local authority, ought to be subject to that compulsory acquisition for the purpose of securing its use in the manner proposed by the plan. That is a new test. In the Clause as it stands, the test is slightly different, and it is whether, in the opinion

of the local authority, the land is likely to require compulsory acquisition. This seems to be an improvement which I thought would rather have commended itself to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid). Where land is designated, it does not necessarily follow that it will be compulsorily acquired, because, if the owner is willing to develop the land in accordance with the plan or is willing to sell it at a reasonable price for the purpose, obviously, compulsory acquisition will not be necessary. That is why it has been thought that a proper test of the need is whether it ought to be subject to compulsory acquisition rather than likely to require compulsory acquisition.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: It may seem some what meticulous to go into the niceties of language in this connection, but I think the House will realise that there is a very important question behind this, because if one thing emerged from our discussions upstairs, it was that the designating of land was extremely harmful for the time being, both to the owner and to the public interest. During the interval between designation and acquisition, not only does the market of land contract, and, therefore, the price fall, but obviously nobody is going to develop land which is designated and subject to acquisition, because the land may be taken the next day. We have an Amendment on the Order Paper to deal with that, and I trust that we shall have an opportunity to discuss it later. If this Bill is not to do immense damage, it is essential that we should limit to the utmost possible extent the amount of land designated at any one time, and should say that there should be the shortest possible interval between the decision that it may be wanted and the decision that it is wanted. The question, therefore, is what is the best and the most limiting form of wording to put in this very vague Subsection. As it now stands, the Sub section reads:
any other land which, in the opinion of the local planning authority, is likely to require compulsory acquisition …
That seems to suggest that it will not be properly developed unless compulsorily acquired. We raised this question in Committee, but I am bound to say that the wording which it is proposed to substitute is a good deal worse because,


in the opinion of the local planning authority, ought to be subject to compulsory acquisition …
seems to my mind to mean nothing at all, unless one knows the political views of the planning authorities. To what is the word "ought" to be related? It should be related to some principle which works in the mind of the planning authority. When we are dealing with what "ought to be" compulsorily acquired, we are getting extremely close to purely political considerations. Hon. Members opposite may say that every piece of land ought to be acquired. Some hon. Members on this side of the House may say that very little should be acquired. Some of us may take a middle view, and say that land ought only to be acquired in limited circumstances, but not in others. Every section of opinion in the House would relate the word "ought" to a different criterion, and, to a very large extent, that criterion would be interpreted according to how far to the Right or Left our general political views happen to be. Therefore, it seems to me to force upon a planning authority which does not want to operate on political grounds, a criterion which as public administrators, they would rather not have.
If the Lord Advocate wants to use the word "ought," he should say "ought" on some criterion or other, and not leave it in the air. I have no doubt that he is tired of looking for the right wording here. My own view is that the conception of the thing being wrong, probably no right wording exists. He may not find an ideal wording, but he will find a wording which is both better than that in the Bill already, and a great deal better than the words of the Amendment. I hope, therefore, that he will undertake to apply his mind again to this matter in the light of what I have just said, because if we put in the words on the Order Paper we shall be asking for a good deal of trouble in a matter which ought to be as clear and concise as we can possibly make it, if we are not to hamper the development of great areas of our country.

The Lord Advocate: I said that I was prepared to look again at the drafting of this Clause, and I will certainly look at this particular point also. However, I am not holding out any great hope of meeting the right hon. and learned Gentleman's

wishes, because it seems to me that the criterion as to whether land ought to be subject to compulsory acquisition should be judged in the light of the plan. That is the standard. I will certainly look at the matter again.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 4, line 14, at the end, to insert:
(3) For the purposes of this Section a development plan may define as an area of comprehensive development any area which in the opinion of the local planning authority should be developed or redeveloped as a whole, whether for the purpose of dealing satisfactorily with extensive war damage or conditions or bad layout or obsolete development, or for the purpose of providing for the relocation of population or industry or the replacement of open space in the course of the development or redevelopment of any other area, or for any other purpose specified in the plan; and land may be included in any area so defined, and designated as subject to compulsory acquisition in accordance with the provision of Subsection (2) of this Section whether or not provision is made by the plan for the development or redevelopment of that particular land.
This Amendment provides a definition of the area of comprehensive development. These words are really inserted for convenience, as the expression is used in later parts of the Bill.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I should not take exception to the first six lines of this Amendment once one realised that we were bound to accept something of the kind, but I take serious exception to the last four lines. I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you would consider my moving the Amendment to line 8 of the proposed Amendment which stands in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself.

Mr. Speaker: That was in my mind. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would like to move his Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Mr. Reid: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 8, to leave out "and," and to insert "but no."

Mr. Speaker: I should say that 1 think the three Amendments to the proposed Amendment all hang together.

Mr. Reid: I think they do. Certainly the first two necessarily hang together, and I think that the third one does—at


least, there is one point involved. I can discuss the matter in one speech. If we are to have an area of comprehensive redevelopment, I accept for the moment the view that the whole proprietary rights of that area ought to be acquired at one time by the authority which is charged with the duty of redevelopment. I will not repeat what I said a few moments ago, but it is very unfortunate if the interval between designation and acquisition is too long. I am very apprehensive that as housing development is slowing down, so the date at which we can expect the development of these areas is being postponed, and I am afraid that this Bill may do more damage than it otherwise would, by reason of there being a maximum interval between the first designation and the actual redevelopment. Therefore, perhaps, one has to look a little more narrowly at what is being done.

Mr. McAllister: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell me whether the word "no" in his Amendment to the proposed Amendment is a misprint for the word "not"? At the moment the Clause cannot be read intelligibly if amended as suggested.

Mr. Reid: I will try to read it as amended:
land may be included in any area so defined, but not designated as subject to compulsory acquisition.…

Mr. William Ross: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I think there is a misprint, because there are only four lines between the figures 5 and 10.

Mr. Reid: At any rate, perhaps it is unnecessary to get the grammar exactly right, because I have no doubt that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when he accepts the Amendment, will put it in order, if it is not already in order. The purpose of the Amendment is clear. We want to exclude from designation land which does not require redevelopment. I am accepting that all land which requires any kind of redevelopment should be acquired in a unit by the authority and redeveloped by that authority. That development may consist in making it an open space, a house, shop or cinema. If that is necessary, I accept that it may then become necessary, although obviously it cannot be done in the next five years, to remove a habitable house which gets

in the way of a new plan, in order to have a proper lay-out. No one could contemplate that sort of thing today in the present state of housing development, but the time may come—and will come when we on this side of the House come into power—when it will be possible. One must look forward to the possibility. Therefore, I am not objecting to the acquisition of habitable premises even, provided they are going to be reshaped. What I object to is the acquisition of property which is not to be altered in any sort of way by the acquiring authority. There is no purpose whatever in the acquiring authority being authorised to do that.
At an earlier stage this afternoon, on an Amendment which only partially raised this point, I referred to the question of what reason there could be for an acquiring authority being made the owner of this property. I still can see only two reasons. One is to make a profit out of it, and the other is to plant their friends there in the place of the people who are there already. In dealing with undeveloped land, one knows that in all litigation for the compulsory acquisition of land there are limits of deviation. One does not fix just exactly where the authority has got to stop; they are given a certain limit of deviation so that when their plans are worked out in more detail, they can go 50 yards to the right if necessary. So far as undeveloped land is concerned, an authority ought to have the same sort of tolerance there as an ordinary statutory undertaker would have. What I object to is the granting of power to acquire whole blocks of buildings which are not going to be altered or taken down, but which are to become the property of the new authority. This is not purely a theoretical question.
7.45 p.m.
I do not profess to know all the ins and outs of some of the controversies which are going on in England, but I gather there is a controversy just now in the South of England about the acquisition by an authority—I do not know if it is a town council—of perfectly habitable offices which it is not proposed to take down. Why should they be acquired by this authority? What is the reason, if it is not one of the two reasons to which I have referred already? It would not be


so bad if the acquiring authority bought it "on the nail," so to speak, on the day that it was designated. One would then avoid the fall in price which takes place owing to the shadow of designation, and one would also avoid the sterilisation which occurs in the interval between designation and acquisition. Therefore, it would not be so bad from the point of view of the owner; although it would be equally bad from the point of view of the occupier if this were done straight away. But the owner will suffer very much if there is a postponement, and the occupier will suffer very much when acquisition takes place.
I would like to hear an explanation of the inter-relationship between this Amendment and Section 29 of the 1945 Act as reprinted on the Order Paper. I do not wish to develop this point, because I shall have a good deal to say about that Section when we reach that point, and I do not want to anticipate my argument, but it does appear that there is no adequate security of tenure once this land is acquired. I think this provision would apply to a property of this kind. If that is so, the new occupier or the new developer—not even a public authority; it may be a private person to whom the building is given over for some purpose—has an absolute power to dispossess the former occupier, notwithstanding rent restrictions or anything else.
If it can be explained how these reprinted Sections do not apply to property acquired under this Clause, I shall be very interested. I have given some research to the matter and these points are so complicated that, without a great deal of labour, it is impossible to get to the bottom of them. I would be glad to have a clear statement about the position of the occupier of property which falls within the last four lines of this Subsection. I think I understand the position of the owner. On the ground of detriment both to the occupier and to the owner, I suggest, not that these four lines should be omitted, but that their meaning should be reversed so that it should be plain that there is not to be an acquisition of property which is not required for the purpose of redevelopment.

The Lord Advocate: The right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) seems rather alarmed at the situation. He seems to see something sinister in every Amendment that we put down. In fact, most of our Amendments have been put down in order to accommodate hon. Members opposite. The point here is simple, and I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman sees the point and accepts it, but his suspicious mind makes him think that something lies behind it. We are simply seeking to ensure that there is a certain measure of latitude. It is most important that there should be power to designate a whole area, even though certain parts of it may not necessarily be redeveloped. That is the whole trouble. One cannot guarantee at the outset that one is going to redevelop every square yard of a particular area. Details will be adjusted at a later date and there must be a certain degree of latitude. That is really all that this Amendment is designed to do. Therefore, if one altered it as suggested by the Amendment to the Amendment, it would tie the hands of local authorities in dealing satisfactorily with the redevelopment of areas of land, and it is highly undesirable that their hands should be so tied. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's assumption is that these planning authorities will act in an oppressive and wrong way. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are not entitled to assume that. I gladly assume that the local planning authorities will act properly as popular bodies. They require this latitude to carry out the job. For these reasons, we must resist the Amendment to the Amendment.

Commander Galbraith: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that my right hon. and learned Friend was taking it for granted that these great planning authorities would act in an oppressive or wrong way. If that were at the back of his mind, he might have some justification for it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will no doubt remember what happened in Bristol and in Plymouth. In each case the local planning authority endeavoured to take over some property which they had no intention whatsoever of interfering with in any way so far as planning was concerned. One cannot imagine why they should have wanted to do that, unless they wanted to make some profit out of


it. It is to prevent that kind of thing that we desire that our Amendment to the Amendment should be accepted. I cannot see why not. Why on earth, if they do not want to touch the land, should they acquire it? The right hon. and learned Gentleman says there must be a certain amount of latitude; but, surely, when people make out these plans they know perfectly well whether it is necessary to obliterate an area or widen it.
I cannot see where the need for this latitude comes in. The planners will know perfectly well whether, in any particular place, they are going to leave a street exactly as it is, or whether they are going to leave property exactly as it is, and do nothing to it. Yet the right hon and learned Gentleman says the local planning authorities must have latitude in case they want to alter the property; but they should know first whether they want to alter it or not. I want to know whether the Government really intend to legalise the kind of things the local planning authorities wanted to do in Bristol and in Plymouth, because that would seem to be another reason why this Government Amendment ought to be resisted. I hope I have made myself clear; and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will deal with these two cases. There is evidence that, occasionally, for some reason or another, local planning authorities want to do things which are oppressive.

Mr. Buchanan: May I just say a word in reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith)? I candidly admit I am not fully seized of the Plymouth and Bristol cases. What I am clear about is the position we have taken. I wish to associate myself fully with what the Lord Advocate said—that no local authority will act oppressively. The first thing a local planning authority has to do is to draw a line on the land they require, the property they require. They do not do that in a fully detailed fashion first. They draw a line that gives them all they think they need, and then, after they have done that, they acquire the land. It may well be that when they get down to closer grips with the subject, they find they have taken within that compass some property that they do not intend to develop. But if we took the point of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, it would mean that the local authority,

if they drew a line and narrowed themselves to everything that they thought was absolutely necessary, might well find, in the future development of their plans, that they were being circumscribed in their development, because they had felt that some land would not be required.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Why not buy it, then?

Mr. Buchanan: I cannot see the position here of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. All that we are asking is that these public authorities may draw a line, in a rough way, of what they desire. They draw a rough line and say, "That is the property we need in the development area." It may well be that, when they come to develop, they may find that they have taken certain property that they have no desire to take. They can dispose of it. As I said in dealing with the new Clause concerning the New Towns Act, we have nothing in our mind except to allow local planning authorities not to be narrowly circumscribed, but to have a fair field.

Commander Galbraith: Will the hon. Gentleman answer this point—?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must remind the hon. Member that we are not now in Committee. We are on the Report stage, and hon. Members are only entitled to speak once.

Commander Galbraith: With permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would like to put this small question that I want to clear up. I apologise for not asking permission before I started. The hon. Gentleman says that within the area which a local authority wants to develop, there may be property which they find, later on, they do not want to develop.

Mr. Buchanan: Yes.

Commander Galbraith: Are they going to hand it back to the original owners, or keep it?

Mr. Buchanan: It would be for them to decide in all the circumstances. My own view is that if the owners wanted it back, the local authority's duty would be to offer them the first opportunity of acquiring it.

Question put, "That the word and stand part of the proposed Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes. 227; Noes, 69.

Division No. 298;]
AYES.
6.46 p.m


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Collins, V. J.
Hale, Leslie


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Comyns, Dr. L.
Hull, W. G.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camewell, N.W.)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R


Allighan, Garry
Corvedale, Viscount
Hardy, E. A.


Alpass, J. H.
Cove, W. G.
Harrison, J


Attewell, H. C.
Crossman, R. H S
Herbison, Miss M


Austin, H. Lewis
Daggar, G
Hicks, G.


Awbery, S. S.
Daines, P.
Holman, P.


Ayles, W. H
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Holmes, H. E.(Hemsworth


Baird, J.
Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S W.)
House, G.


Balfour, A.
Davies, R J (Westhoughton)
Hoy, J.


Barstow, P. G
Deer, G.
Hubbard, T


Barton, C.
Diamond, J
Hudson, J H.(Ealing, W.)


Battley, J. R.
Dodds, N. N
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bechervaise, A. E
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)


Benson, G.
Dumpleton, C W
Irving, W. J.


Berry, H.
Edelman, M.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A


Beswick, F.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Janner, B.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A (Ebbw Vale)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Jay, D. P. T


Bing, G. H. C
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Jeger, Dr. S. W (St. Pancras, S.E.)


Blyton, W. R.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Farthing, W. J.
Keenan, W.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Kenyon, C.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (I 'pi Exch'ge)
Follick, M.
Key, C. W.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Kinley, J.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Ganley, Mrs C. S
Kirby, B. V


Bruce, Maj. D. W T
Gibbins, J.
Lang, G.


Buchanan, G.
Gilzean, A.
Lavers, S.


Burke, W. A.
Glanville, J E. (Consett)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.


Callaghan, James
Goach, E. G.
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Castle, Mrs. B. A
Gordon-Walker, P. C
Leslie, J. R.


Chamberlain, R. A
Greenwood, A. W. J.(Heywood)
Levy, B. W.


Champion, A. J.
Grenfell, D. R.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Chater, D.
Grey, C. F.
Lipton, Lt.-Col M


Chetwynd, G. R
Grierson, E.
McAdam, W.


Cluse, W. S.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J (Llanelly)
McAllister, G.


Cobb, F. A.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
McEntee, V. La T.


Cocks, F. S.
Gunter, R. J.
McGhee, H. G.


Collindridge, F.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mack, J. D




McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Ranger, J
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Rankin, J
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Maclean, N. (Govan)
Rees-Williams, D. R
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Reeves, J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Thurtle, Ernest


Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Tiffany, S.


Mathers, G.
Robens, A.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Medland, H. M
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Mellish, R. J
Rogers, G. H. R.
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Messer, F.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Viant, S. P.


Middleton, Mrs. L
Royle, C.
Walkden, E


Mikardo, Ian
Scollan, T.
Walker, G. H.


Millington, Wing-Comdr E R
Scott-Elliot, W.
Wallace, G. D.(Chislehurst)


Mitchison, G. R.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Monslow, W.
Sharp, Granville
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Moody, A. S.
Shurmer, P
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H (Lewisham, E.)
Simmons, C. J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Mort, D. L
Skeffington, A. M.
Wilkins, W. A.


Moyle, A.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Nally, W.
Skinnard, F. W.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Smith, C (Colchester)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Oldfield, W. H.
Solley, L. J.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Oliver, G. H
Sorensen, R. W
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Orbach, M.
Sparks, J. A
Williamson, T


Paget, R T
Stamford, W
Willis, E.


Palmer, A. M. F
Steele, T.
Wills, Mrs. E A


Parker, J.
Stephen, C.
Wyatt, W.


Parkin, B. T.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Yates, V. F.


Paton, J. (Norwich)
Stross, Dr. B
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Pearson, A.
Stubbs, A. E
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Peart, T. F.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Zilliacus, K.


Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)
Sylvester, G. O.



Popplewell, E.
Symonds, A. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Proctor, W. T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Mr. Hannan.


Randall, H. E
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)





NOES


Anderson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)
Hurd, A.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E


Astor, Hon. M.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Ramsay, Maj. S


Baldwin, A. E.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Baxter, A. B.
Jeffreys, General Sir G
Reid, Rt. Hon J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Lambert, Hon. G.
Renton, D.


Birch, Nigel
Langford-Holt, J.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Boothby, R
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Bower, N.
Lindsay, M (Solihull)
Ropner, Col. L.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Shepherd, W. S (Bucklow)


Buchan-Hopburn, P. G. T.
Low, Brig. A. R. W
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H
Smithers, Sir W.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon H. F. C.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O. E.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Crowder, Capt. John E
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Strauss, H. G (English Universities)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
McKie, J. H (Galloway)
Studholme, H G.


Drewe, C.
MacLeod, J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Eden, Rt. Hon A
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Marples, A. E.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N


Gage, C.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Thorp, Lt.-Col R A F


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D
Medlicott, F.
Turton, R. H.


Gammans, L. D.
Mellor, Sir J
Vane, W. M. F.


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Molson, A. H E
Wadsworth, G.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. [...]
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Grant, Lady
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Gridley, Sir A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Neven-Spence, Sir B
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Nicholson, G
Winterton, Rt Hon. Earl


Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Noble, Comdr. A. H P



Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Nutting, Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Commander Agnew and


Hollis, M. C
Pickthorn, K.
Major Conant.

Division No. 299.
AYES.
7.58 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Griffiths, Rt Hon J (Llanelly)
Popplewell, E.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Gunter, R. J.
Porter E. (Warring[...])


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Alpass, J. H.
Hale, Leslie
Proctor, W. T


Attewell, H. C
Hall, W. G.
Randall, H. E


Austin, H. Lewis
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Ranger, J


Awbery, S. S
Hardy, E A
Rankin, J


Ayles, W. H
Harrison, J
Rees-Williams, D.[...]


Baird, J
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Reeves, J.


Balfour A.
Holman, P.
Raid, T. (Swindon)


Barnes, Rt. Hon A J
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M


Barstow, P. G
House, G
Robens, A.


Barton, C.
Hoy, J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Battley, J. R.
Hubbard, T.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Bechervaise, A E
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Benson, G
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Royle, C.


Berry, H.
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W)
Scollan, T.


Beswick, F.
Irving, W. J.
Segal, Dr. S


Bing, G. H. C
Isaacs, Rt Hon. G. A
Shackleton, E. A A


Blackburn, A. R
Janner, B
Sharp, Granville


Blenkinsop, A
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Shurmer, P.


Blyton, W. R.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Bowden, Fig-Offr. H. W
Keenan, W.
Simmons, C. J.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Key, C. W
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pt Exch'ge)
Kinley, J
Skinnard, F W.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Kirby, B. V
Smith, C (Colchester)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Lang, G.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T
Lavers, S.
Solley, L. J


Buchanan, G.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Sorensen, R. W


Burke, W. A.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Sparks, J. A


Castle, Mrs. B. A
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Stamford, W


Chamberlain, R. A
Leonard, W.
Steele, T.


Champion, A. J
Leslie, J. R.
Stephen, C.


Chater, D.
Levy, B. W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Chetwynd, G. R
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Strauss, G. R (Lambeth, N.)


Cobb, F. A.
Lipton, Lt.-Col M
Stross, Dr. B


Cocks, F. S.
McAdam, W
Stubbs, A. E


Coldrick, W.
McAllister, G.
Sylvester, G O


Collins, V. J.
McEntee, V. La T.
Symonds, A. L


Colman, Miss G. M
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Comyns, Dr. L.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb well, N W.)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Coriett, Dr. J.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Corvedale, Viscount
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Thomson, Rt. Hn G. R. (Ed'b'gh. E.)


Cove, W. G
Marshall F. (Brightside)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Crossman, R. H S
Martin, J. H
Thurtle, Ernest


Daggar, G.
Mathers, G.
Tiffany, S.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Mayhew, C. P
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Medland, H. M
Ungoed-Thomas, L


Davies, R J (Westhoughton)
Mellish, R. J
Usborne, Henry


Deer, G.
Messer, F.
Vernon, Maj W P


Diamond, J.
Middleton, Mrs. L
Viant, S. P


Dodds, N. N.
Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R
Walkden, E


Driberg, T. E. N
Mitchison, G. R
Walker, G H


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Monslow, W.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Moody, A. S.
Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow. E.)


Edelman, M.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Edwards, W. J (Whitechapel)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Evans, E (Lowestoft)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Mort, D. L
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Evans, S. N (Wednesbury)
Moyle, A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Fairhurst, F.
Nally, W.
Wilkins, W. A.


Fletcher, E. G M (Islington, E.)
Nicholls, H. R (Stratford)
Willey, O G. (Cleveland)


Follick, M.
Noel-Baker, Capt F E (Brentford)
Williams, J. L (Kelvingrove)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Williams, W. R (Heston)


Gaitskell, H. T. N
O'Brien, T.
Williamson, T


Ganley, Mrs C S
Oldfield, W. H
Willis, E.


Gibbins, J.
Paget, R. T.
Wills, Mrs. E A


Gilzean, A.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Wyatt, W


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Palmer, A. M. F
Yates, V. F.


Gooch, E. G.
Pargiter, G. A
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Gordon-Walker, P. C
Parker, J.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Haywood)
Parkin, B. T.
Zilliacus, K


Grenfell, D. R
Paton, J. (Norwich)



Grey, C. F.
Pearson, A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grierson, E.
Peart, T F
Mr. Collindridge and




Mr. Hannan.







NOES


Astor, Hon. M
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm, Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Ramsay, Maj S


Baldwin, A. E.
Hutchison, Col J R (Glasgow, C.)
Rayner, Brig R


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Keeling, E H.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C (Hillhead)


Boles, Lt.-Col D. C. (Wells)
Langford-Holt, J.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Boothby, R
Lindsay, M (Solihull)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Bower, N
Lucas-Tooth. St H
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Cor W
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Clarke, Col R. S.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Strauss, H. G (English Universities)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O E
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Sutcliffe, H


Darling, Sir W Y
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Drewe, C.
Marples, A. E.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A (P'dd't'n, s)


Dugdale, Maj Sir T (Richmond)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Teeling, William


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Medlicott, F
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N


Fyfe, Rt Hon Sir D P M
Mellor, Sir J
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F


Gage, C.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T
Vane, W. M. F.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Gomme-Duncan, Col A
Morrison, Rt Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Gridley, Sir A.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Williams, C (Torquay)


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Orr-Ewing, I. L
Winterton, Rt Hon. Earl


Headlam, Lieut-Col. Rt Hon Sir C
Osborne, C.



Mollis, M. C
Pickthorn, K
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hurd, A
Raikes, H V
Mr. Studholme and




Major Conant.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 22, leave out from "aforesaid," to ?within,? in line 23, and to insert:
it it appears to him that the acquisition is not likely to take place."—[Mr. Buchanan.]

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page 4, line 24, at the end, to insert:
or in the case of agricultural land as defined in subsection (4) of Section forty-seven of this Act within seven years from that date.
This Amendment is designed to make the position clear. It represents a concession in respect of taking over agricultural land. We had fixed a period of ten years for that land, in respect of which there was some criticism in the Standing Committee. I do not think we have gone all the way to meet that criticism, but we have gone some way by reducing the period to seven years.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Amendment of development plans.)

Amendment made: In page 5, line 38, leave out "a reference," and insert"references."—[Mr. Buchanan.]

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page 5, line 46, at the end, to insert:
(5) Any proposal submitted to the Secretary of State under this section for any alteration or addition to a development plan and any amendment made by the Secretary of State under this section to a development plan may provide for securing that any land previously designated by the plan as subject to compulsory acquisition shall cease to be

so designated, or that any land not previously so designated shall be so designated.
This Amendment also represents an endeavour to meet a criticism made in the Standing Committee. The Opposition said we should provide specifically that proposals for any alteration or addition to a plan might include proposals for removing designation of land. This Amendment is intended to meet that point.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Additional powers of the Secretary of State with respect to development plans.)

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move 111 page 6, line 22, to leave out "other district," and to insert:
neighbouring district or any other local planning authority who appear or the Secretary of State to have an interest in the proper planning of the district concerned
Clause 5 (2) provides that where a local planning authority defaults in the preparation or amendment of the development plan, the Secretary of State may, instead of himself making or amending the plan, authorise the local planning authority for any other district to do so. That is in the case of default. This Amendment provides that the other planning authority must be the authority for a neighbouring district. In other words, instead of the Secretary of State exercising these default powers, which I am told have rarely been used, in the case of a local authority default the power is placed on another local authority. Obviously, if such a thing happened in


the South of Scotland we should not want an authority in the North of Scotland dealing with it. This is merely to make certain that it will be an authority in the close neighbourhood which will do the job.

Commander Galbraith: We welcome this Amendment, which is as a result of the arguments put forward in Committee by Members on this side of the House. It makes it much clearer, and does away with many misunderstandings.

Mr. Buchanan: I would point out that some Members on this side of the House put forward arguments in favour of this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: in page 6, line 37, at end, insert:
(4) Any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under this section in connection with the making or amendment of a development plan with respect to the district, or any part of the district, of a local planning authority shall be paid in the first instance out of moneys provided by Parliament, but so much of those expenses as may be certified by the Secretary of State to have been incurred in the performance of functions of that authority shall on demand be repaid by that authority to the Secretary of State.
(5) Where, under this section, a development plan or proposals for the amendment of such a plan are authorised to be submitted to the Secretary of State by the local planning authority for any district other than the district in which the land is situated, any expenses reasonably incurred in that behalf by the said authority, as certified by the Secretary of State, shall be repaid to that authority by the local planning authority for the district in which the land is situated."—[Mr. Westwood.]

CLAUSE 7.—(Supplementary provisions as to development plans.)

Mr. Westwood: I beg to move, in page 7, line 36, at the end, to insert:
(a) that before preparing a development plan or proposals for alterations or additions to any such plan the local planning authority shall consult with such bodies or persons as may be prescribed by the regulations.
This Amendment is to meet the argument in Committee that there should be consultations with the agricultural executive committees when development plans are being prepared. It would not be feasible to single out the agricultural executive committees for consultation, as this would lead to representations being made from other bodies with just as much

right to be taken into consultation. This Amendment enables the Secretary of State, by regulation, to prescribe that local planning authorities shall consult with such bodies as may be specified. I give the assurance that I am quite prepared to specify in the regulations that agricultural executive committees in county areas shall be among the bodies that must be consulted.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, at the end, to add:
and in particular, if the regulations so prescribe, with the agricultural executive committee for each county in which any land affected by the plan is situated.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that the regulations will stipuate that the county agricultural executive committees shall be consulted. If that is the case, why will he not put it in the Bill? He said that he did not want to specify all the authorities who might be consulted, but, after all, agriculture is the most important of all bodies, and the land being taken over is agricultural land. Having undertaken to put this in the regulations, why cannot he put it in the Bill? No other parties can be half as interested as the agricultural people, and it seems only right that they should be consulted.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
I wish to support what has been said about the importance of the agricultural interests. Those who had occasion during the war to seek the advice of the agricultural executive committees in regard to camping and training sites will realise how important it is that one area should be chosen as against another. To the layman it often seems that two or three areas are of equal value. But when it comes to the detail of the matter only the agriculturist can tell why one area should be chosen and another left alone. That applies particularly in town and country planning. It is of the greatest importance that the local planning authority, in deciding where housing, industrial development, and new centres of population are to be, should act in the closest accord with those responsible for the maintenance and development of


agriculture. No one is better qualified to give advice on this matter, in the different localities, than the members of the agricultural executive committees. They are local men, and often they are farmers, who are representative of the agricultural interests. They know exactly the quality of the land, all about water supplies and access roads, and so on, which are so important. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he is prepared to put this into the regulations, but I join with my hon. and gallant Friend in urging him, even at this late hour, to put it into the Bill. Regulations have not quite the force of an Act of Parliament, and if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to provide for consultation, which was what we pressed for in Committee, I hope he will now accept the point of view that there should be a specific requirement that planning authorities should consult agricultural committees.

Mr. Westwood: Here, again, I have done my best to try to meet the points which were put by right hon. and hon. Members opposite in Committee. I cannot, however, accept this Amendment, because it is often the case in connection with legislation that if one thing is specified there may be exclusion of others. I have made it clear that in the regulations there will be consultation in the county areas. But not all planning authorities have agricultural executive committees. I imagine that Glasgow has not got one; I know that Kirkcaldy has not got one; I imagine that none of the other 19 large burghs have got one, and that the four cities have not got one. Agricultural executive committees operate in the county areas. I agree about the need for consultation, and I have tried to widen the Bill to this effect. Having given the pledge that through the regulations I will see that agricultural executive committees are consulted in the agricultural areas, I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Stephen: If the Amendment were accepted agricultural executive committees would only be consulted if consultation was provided for in the regulations. Since the right hon. Gentleman has given an assurance, I cannot see why the Opposition want to put their Amendment into the Bill.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 8, line 10, at the end, to insert:
(3) If as the result of any objections or representations considered, or of any local inquiry or other hearing held, in connection with a development plan or proposals for amendment of such a plan submitted to or prepared by the Secretary of State under this Part of this Act, the Secretary of State is of opinion that the local planning authority or any other authority or person ought to be consulted before he decides whether to approve or make the plan either with or without modifications, or to amend the plan, as the case may be, he shall consult that authority or person, but shall not be under any obligation to consult any other authority or person, or to afford any opportunity for further objections or representations or to cause any further local inquiry or other hearing to be held.
This Amendment allows the Secretary of State after considering objections or representations or the holding of a local inquiry, to enter into further consultations with any person or body at his discretion. He is able to enter into these consultations without having further meetings with the people with whom he has been previously in consultation. The Amendment is designed to provide facilities in connection with the approval of development plans. It is important that after the Secretary of State has received the report of such an inquiry that he should be free to consider it in the light of further information and further consultation. To prevent him doing that would curtail his opportunities of producing a good scheme

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, to leave out from "considered," to "in," in line 2.
If it would be in Order, I think that it might be convenient to consider together this and the following Amendment, in line 9, to leave out from "representations," to the end.
While the directions of the Secretary of State through the local planning authorities are a natural means of requesting information, the performance of the duties and functions by local planning authorities ought, we think, to be regulated only by statutory regulations under the Act—regulations which are open to public scrutiny and to annulment by Parliament under the terms of Clause 104. Where such directions are of a general character and refer to all or a majority of the local planning authorities,


they ought to be in the form of directions. This point was raised in Committee in a rather different way. The Joint Under-Secretary, I think, gave an assurance then that the matter would be looked into, and if it was felt to be one of any substance an Amendment would be put down. We are sorry that an Amendment has not been put down, and that was the reason why we were prompted to put forward these two Amendments.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

The Lord Advocate: The Amendment, of the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) is, as he has stated, really to point the opposition to the Amendment which we have proposed. We have looked at this matter again, but we think that it is absolutely essential that the Secretary of State should have this unlimited power of consultation.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 8, line 29, to leave out Subsections (5) and (6).
This is merely drafting.

Commander Galbraith: This is rather a large order to see covered by the words "drafting." Could we have an explanation of where the drafting comes in?

Mr. Westwood: I gave an explanation on a previous Amendment which has been agreed to, and this merely puts these particular Subsections in the right place. This is consequential on an Amendment already accepted by the House.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Validity and date of operation of development plans.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 9, line 48, at the end, to insert:
(5) Where under paragraph (c) of the proviso to Subsection (4) of Section three of this Act any land to which a development plan relates is designated as subject to compulsory acquisition in pursuance of an order to which the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act. 1945, applies, then—

(a) if the order is confirmed by Act of Parliament under Subsection (4) of Section two, as read with Section ten, of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945,

or under Section six of that Act, Subsections (2) and (3) of this Section shall not apply to the plan so far as it designates that land; and
(b) in any other case this Section shall have effect in relation to the plan so far as it so designates that land, as if in Subsection (2) for the reference to the date on which the notice required by Subsection (1) is first published there were substituted a reference to the date on which the order becomes operative under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, and as if in Subsection (3) the words from 'and shall become operative' to the end of the Subsection were omitted."
The proviso to Clause 3 (3) provides that where a development plan has been submitted to the Secretary of State and designates as subject to compulsory acquisition land belonging to a local authority or statutory undertaker, or inalienable land belonging to the National Trust, if objection is taken to the proposed acquisition and is not withdrawn, the land must not be designated except by an order made by the Secretary of State, which is subject to special Parliamentary procedure. The effect of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, is that if objections are made the order under the procedure of that Act applies to those objections, and if they are not withdrawn an inquiry must be held by the Commissioners under the Private Legislation Procedure Act. If the Secretary of State does not accept the findings of the Commissioners, he must present to Parliament a Bill for the confirming of the order. Under Section 6 of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, an order must under certain circumstances be confirmed by Act of Parliament, and where that happens under the 1945 Act it is inappropriate that there should be the right to challenge the order in the courts. That really is the point of the Amendment. Accordingly, the present Amendment provides that Clause 8 (2, b) dealing with applications to the court shall not apply to such an order.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 9—(Obligation to obtain permission for development.)

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I beg to move, in page 10, line 8, to leave out "mining."
If I might, I will also take the Amendment in page 10, line 10, at the end, to insert:
other than operations or the making use of land for the extraction of minerals.


The purpose of these two Amendments can be stated quite simply. It is to exclude minerals from the operation of this Bill. There is no doubt that the value of minerals in the soil is very high indeed, This value is one upon which Death Duties have been assessed in the past and very large sums paid, and in certain cases it is a large element in valuation. If the House had not so much work before it tonight it would be possible to go in detail into the value of mineral deposits in Scotland. Various estimates have been given at different stages both of the English and the Scottish Bills to show that the value of mineral rights is somewhere between £50 million and £100 million. I am not prepared to say at this stage where the right figure should lie, but it is certainly above £50 million. If any right hon. Gentleman opposite challenges that statement I am prepared to produce figures here and now which will justify a value of £50 million at least on the basis of the values of 1938, which are very different from those obtaining today.
The value of iron, limestone, sand and gravel, which are very much in demand for building of every kind, of igneous rocks and shale, and of such things as fullers' earth can all be assessed fairly accurately. If it is true that all these minerals are worth not less than £50 million and not more than £100 million, it becomes clear that if the owners are to be properly and justly compensated for the withdrawal of mineral development rights they will take up a very large proportion of the £300 million which is the global sum set aside for the compensation of owners who lose development rights in Scotland on the one hand and England and Wales on the other. That reduces the £300 million by a very large amount. I am aware that it would not be appropriate on this occasion to go into details as to how that figure might have been arrived at, but I would remind the House of the assessment of value of development rights, excluding mineral rights and redevelopment rights in urban areas. The assessment of that value made by the Chief Valuer of the Inland Revenue Department in 1938 was £400 million as against the £300 million under the English Bill, and, as I say, that figure did not include redevelopment rights, in land or mineral development rights.
For these reasons we say, first, that if the £300 million is to be anything like adequate to compensate for loss of development rights, we must exclude the value of mineral rights. The second thing we say is that a Bill of this kind is not a proper medium for introducing nationalisation of mineral rights. That question is quite apart from town and country planning, and should properly be dealt with by a Measure of its own for the acquisition of those rights. We say that if it is the Government's policy to acquire development rights in minerals, the Government should have the courage of their convictions and come forward with a Bill specifically directed to that end. They should not try to introduce it as it were by a side wind, in a town and country planning Measure. We have much to do before we go home tonight, and in view of that fact, I think I need not labour the point any further. I am sure it is one of which we are all fully seized.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I beg to second the Amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for West: Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) has already put the case succinctly so that nothing more is needed from me. The Government have said that they are prepared to give fair compensation to mineral owners. We might differ as to the meaning of the word "fair." If the figure of £50 million to £100 million mentioned by my hon. Friend is correct, then it is clear that the proposed £300 million will not cover that fair compensation. I second the Amendment in the sincere hope that the Secretary of State will reconsider the matter, which at present is far from justly dealt with.

Mr. Westwood: If the Amendment were accepted, it would take mining operations out of the definition of development. The effect would be to remove mining operation from planning control—and this is a planning Bill. It would also exclude minerals from participation in the £300 million. I think that sums up the points which have been made and admitted by the sponsors of the Amendment The mover indicated that this matter was fairly fully debated in Committee. I should never say "fully" on a problem of this kind. An exactly similar Amendment was moved, and was negatived. The point made, quite correctly, in Committee was


that mining operations covered quarrying and the extraction of all minerals, including sand and gravel. It was urged that the necessity to obtain permission for the extraction of sand and gravel would delay house building. It was also stated that £300 million would not be adequate to compensate the local authorities. I mention these matters to prove that the matter was fully debated in Committee
Power to control mining operations was conferred by the 1932 Act, although the control has been modified by the Town and Country Planning (Interim Development) (Scotland) Order, 1946, made by the Secretary of State. It is essential to retain the right of control over mining. Otherwise, planning control by local authorities may be stultified by mining operations leading to subsidence and flooding. The Bill recognises that special arrangements may have to be made, as in the case of the present Interim Development Order, in relation to mineral workings, and Clause 76 provides that regulations may be made applying the provisions of the Bill to such workings, subject to such adaptations and modifications as may be prescribed. I trust that this Amendment will not be pressed to a Division. I cannot possibly accept it.

Commander Galbraith: I am very sorry to hear the last words spoken by the Secretary of State, because I am afraid that we shall feel it our duty to press this Amendment to a Division. The White Paper, Command 6537, dealing with the control of land use, pointed out that special considerations must arise in the case of mineral workings. It also laid down that that type of development should not be included in the proposals made in regard to compensation and betterment. Here we have happening the very thing that the White Paper said should not happen. The compensation fund, which we already know is much too low to be fair all round, will be reduced by a very large proportion due to the fact that these minerals are being taken into account. We are firmly of the opinion that this is unjust and unfair, and that is not doing what the Government promised to do—that is, to pay fair compensation. For those reasons, we must press the Amendment.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The outstanding reason why the word "mining" should

be left out of the Clause is that the Central Land Board is unlikely primarily to be capable of dealing with under-surface workings. That is not its job. It will add enormously to the complications of the work of the Board if this has to be undertaken. That is essentially a matter for the Ministry of Fuel and Power and it is wrong to overburden the Central Land Board with matters of this kind. Apart from that, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) said, special considerations are involved. There is the very wide consideration of what is actually being taken out of the mines, which cannot be dealt with simply by the Board.
In Committee two separate aspects were referred to. There is the aspect of those concerns and enterprises which have already acquired their own mining rights. It is quite wrong that they should be deprived of the development rights they have already acquired and should then have to pay again. It is true that there will be a certain compensation or hardship allowance, but they will have to pay again in order to have the minerals they have themselves acquired. That is not paralleled in any other aspect of development, and it should be dealt with entirely separately. For those reasons, I feel strongly that the word "mining" should be left out of the Bill.

8.45 p.m.

Sir W. Darling: I speak for a number of business people who have been at some pains to approach me on the matter of mineral rights. What they allege is that if this provision remains in the Clause, as is proposed by the Government, it will hinder seriously the development of mineral rights in Scotland. Hon. Members will be aware that they have not been developed to anything like the extent they have been in other parts of the country, and this Clause will hinder rather than encourage their future exploitation. Some surveys made by the Scottish Council of Industry have discovered during the war a number of valuable minerals which have not been exploited commercially in Scotland. I have a list here. They include silica, fluorspar, china clay, gypsum, sandstone, slate and a number of others. The development of these substances is at best a speculative enterprise, and the addition of the development charge to their already somewhat speculative character


will be, in the opinion of my correspondents, inimical to the interests of Scotland.
If the Minister can assure me that these views are ill-founded and that, on the contrary, the retention of these words will make for the more effective exploitation of this mineral wealth of Scotland in the future than has been the case in the past, I should be inclined to value his views against those put before me. However, he must be aware that these minerals are in a very undeveloped condition. I am not blaming anyone for their lack of development—that feature is a feature of the past and we are looking encouragingly into the future—but these substances, of a varied and unusual character, are waiting for exploitation, and that, it is alleged, will be hindered.
There is another substance which is important, and here I agree with my hon.

Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) that it is a matter for the Minister of Fuel and Power. The Minister of Fuel and Power has the mining development of Scotland in hand under his special jurisdiction, but there is an important and valuable fuel in Scotland in the form of many thousands of acres of peat. Peat will be included under this development charge and it would seem to be unfortunate, when the Minister of Fuel and Power is engaged just now in an investigation of the character of peat for its calorific qualities, if it were so included. I hope the Minister will be able to satisfy the public, if not myself, that this Clause will make for a development of Scotland and not a retardation.

Question put, "That the word mining 'stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes. 241; Noes, 63.

Division No. 300.]
AYES
8.48 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Batham)
Grossman, R. H. S.
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Daggar, G.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Irving, W. J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Isaacs, Rt Hon. G. A


Alpass, J. H.
Davies, R J. (Westhoughton)
Janner, B


Attewell, H. C
Deer, G.
Jay, D. P. T.


Austin, H. Lewis
Diamond, J.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)


Awbery, S. S
Donovan, -T.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Ayles, W. H
Driberg, T. E. N.
Keenan, W.


Baird, J.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Kendall, W. D


Balfour A.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Kenyon, C.


Barnes, Rt. Hon A J
Edelman, M.
Key, C. W


Barstow, P. G.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E


Barton, C.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Kinley, J


Battley, J. R.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Kirby, B. V


Bechervaise, A E.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Lang, G.


Benson, G.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lavers, S.


Berry, H.
Fairhurst, F.
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Beswick, F.
Farthing, W. J.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Bing, G. H. C.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Leonard, W.


Blackburn, A. R
Follick, M
Leslie, J. R.


Blenkinsop, A
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Levy, B. W.


Blyton, W. R.
Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Lewis, A. W. J (Upton)


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Lipton, Lt-Col M


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Gibbins, J.
McAdam, W.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pt, Exch'ge)
Gilzean, A.
McAllister, G.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
McEntee, V. La T.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Gooch, E. G.
McGhee, H. G.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Mack, J. D.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)


Buchanan, G.
Grenfell, D. R.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Burke, W. A.
Grey, C. F
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Butler, H W. (Hackney, S.)
Grierson, E
Mainwaring, W. H.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Chamberlain, R. A
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Champion, A. J.
Gunter, R. J.
Marshall F. (Brightside)


Chater, D.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Martin, J. H


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hale, Leslie
Mathers, G.


Cobb, F. A.
Hall, W. G.
Mayhew, C. P.


Cocks, F. S.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Medland, H. M


Coldrick, W.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Mellish, R. J.


Collindridge, F.
Hardy, E. A.
Messer, F.


Collins, V. J.
Harrison, J.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R


Comyns, Dr. L.
Holman, P.
Mitchison, G. R.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Holmes, H. E (Hemsworth)
Monslow, W.


Corbet, Mrs. F K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
House, G
Moody, A. S.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Hoy, J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Corvedale, Viscount
Hubbard, T.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)


Cove, W. G
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Mort, D. L.


Crawley, A
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Moyle, A.




Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Tiffany, S.


Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Sharp, Granville
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


O'Brien, T.
Shurmer, P
Ungoed-Thomas, L


Oldfield, W. H.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Usborne, Henry


Paget, R. T.
Simmons, C. J.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Paling, Rt Hon. Wilfred (Wen.worth)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C
Viant, S. P.


Palmer, A. M. F
Skinnard, F. W.
Walkden, E.


Pargiter, G. A.
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Walker, G. H


Parker, J.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Parkin, B. T.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Paton, J. (Norwich)
Solley, L. J.
Weitzman, D.


Pearson, A.
Sorensen, R. W
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Peart, T. F.
Sparks, J. A.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Porter E. (Warrington)
Stamford, W
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Steele, T.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Proctor, W. T
Stephen, C.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Randall, H E
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Ranger, J.
Strauss, G. R (Lambeth, N.)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Rankin, J.
Stross, Dr. B
Williams, J. L (Kelvingrove)


Rees-Williams, D. R
Stubbs, A. E.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Reeves, J.
Sylvester, G. O.
Williamson, T


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Symonds, A. L.
Willis, E.


Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Robens, A.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wyatt, W.


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Yates, V. F.


Rogers, G. H. R.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Royle, G.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh. E.)
Zilliacus, K


Scollan, T.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)



Segal, Dr. S
Thurtle, Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewell.




NOES.


Anderson, Rt. Hon Sir J (Scot Univ.)
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Ramsay, Maj. S


Astor, Hon. M.
Hutchison, Col. J. R (Glasgow, C.)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Baldwin, A. E
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Beamish, Maj T V. H
Langford-Holt, J.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Boles, Lt.-Col D C. (Wells)
Lindsay, M (Solihull)
Shepherd, W S. (Bucklow)


Boothby, R
Lucas-Tooth Sir H.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Bower, N
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-[...] W
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Strauss, H. G (English Universities)


Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Sutcliffe, H


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Marples, A. E.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O E
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Maude, J. C
Teeling, William


Drewe, C.
Medlicott, F
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Mellor, Sir J
Vane, W. M. F.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon Sir D. P. M
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Gage, C.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Neven-Spence, Sir B
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Hunnon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Nutting, Anthony
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V
Orr-Ewing, I. L



Haughton, S. G.
Osborne, C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Pickthorn, K
Mr. Studholme and


Hurd, A.
Raikes, H. V
Lieut.-Colonel Thorp.

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page 10, line 14, after "maintenance," to insert "improvement or other alteration."
We also deal with this matter in Clause 109, which we shall seek to amend later. The effect of the Amendment is to make it clear that improvements such as internal decorations, etc., are outwith the scope of the Bill, and that the only things covered are external works which would be in conflict in any sense with planning administration. The ordinary work of maintaining and pointing a building, etc., will be excluded from the scope of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 15, leave out. from "building," to "external," in line 16, and insert:
being works which affect only the interior of the building or which do not materially affect the."—[Mr. Buchanan.]

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page 10, line 20, at the end, to insert:
(c) the carrying out by any local authority or statutory undertakers of any works for the purpose of inspecting, repairing or renewing any sewers, mains, pipes cables or other apparatus, including the breaking open of any street or other land for that purpose.
The Amendment provides that operations by a local authority or a statutory undertaking necessary for maintaining, for example, sewers, gas and electricity


mains, are not development for the purposes of Clause 9, and that they will, therefore, be outside planning control, and will not be liable to any development charge. There is no need to keep these operations within the scope of the Bill because no development charge will be payable in any case. The Amendment has been limited to the maintenance of authorised apparatus, but the whole question of the breaking open of streets is under consideration by the Minister of Transport, and special legislation will be required for that. Until that is done, a measure of control should be maintained over new apparatus, at least until new legislation comes into force.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I am sure that this is a good Amendment, though I wonder whether it goes far enough. So far as I can see, it applies only if existing cables, pipes, or the like are replaced. In a developing district it is obvious that an extra cable or pipe may be required, and in that case an extra piece of apparatus is laid in the same street. It would be a great pity if the authority were limited to the exact number of pieces of apparatus which it had in the past, and had to pay if it put in an extra one, though there was no real development at all. I wonder whether the Amendment is wide enough or whether it should be extended to cover reasonable amplification of existing resources.

Mr. Buchanan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made a point and I will consider the matter.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I did not have the advantage of being present when this matter was considered in Committee. If I am dealing with something with which the hon. Gentleman has already dealt, I hope he will tell me. The Amendment mentions:
the carrying out by any local authority or statutory undertakers of any works for the purpose of inspecting, repairing or renewing any sewers, mains, pipes, cables or other apparatus.…
What is the situation of the owner of a private estate who renews or repairs pipes within his estate, which may be of considerable extent? Does he come within this exemption?

Mr. Buchanan: As I see it, I would say say that according to the wording of this

Amendment the answer would be "No."

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would the Joint Under-Secretary reconsider this? I can think of several cases where pipes have been relaid in the interests of the occupants of a large number of cottages, and so on.

Mr. Buchanan: I think that nearly all those are laid by a statutory undertaker or a local authority. I confess that the hon. and gallant Gentleman may have a case in regard to the large hotels in the Highlands. I understand that sometimes they develop their own power, for which purpose they lay certain cables. That may be a case which he has in mind. I think that in almost every other case the work is carried out by a statutory undertaking or by a local authority. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks that there is something in the point. I will look at the matter again.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move in page 10, line 38, to leave out "may involve." and to insert "involves."
It has been suggested to us that the words "may involve" do not conduce to the avoidance of doubt. The present Amendment, therefore, substitutes the word "involves." We think that this makes the position more clear.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: I ask hon. Members to consider the extraordinary situation which has developed as a result of this very small point. The Clause says:
The deposit of refuse of waste materials on land …
and there it is proposed to insert the word "involves"—
… a material change in the use thereof, notwithstanding that the land is comprised in a site already used for that purpose, if the superficial area of the deposit is thereby extended.
I may be very dense, but I simply fail to see how one can deposit any refuse, or, indeed, anything else, without extending the superficial area where that is done.

Mr. Buchanan: We are not discussing that now. All I was discussing was whether the words "may involve" or the word "involves" should be used.

Colonel Hutchison: I appreciate that, but it seems to me that the Amendment is quite unnecessary and redundant, because no deposit can possibly take place anywhere, without the superficial area each time being increased.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I think that question does not arise. The House is dealing with the Amendment on the Order Paper, and nothing more or less.

Colonel Hutchison: I am glad to drop the matter, which is quite unimportant, though it is really making nonsense of the Clause as it stands. It is self-evident.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: in page 10, line 43, leave out "Subject," and insert "Without prejudice."—[Mr. Buchanan.]

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page 11, line 20, after "that," to insert:

(i) in determining for the purposes of paragraph (a) of this Subsection the purposes for which land was normally used and in determining for the purposes of paragraph (c) of this Subsection the purposes for which land was last used, no account shall be taken of any use of the land begun in contravention of previous planning control within the meaning of Section seventy of this Act;
(ii)."
Clause 9 (5) provides that, in the case of land which, on the appointed day, is being used temporarily for a purpose which is not its normal use, planning permission is not required for the resumption of the normal use. The effect of the Amendment is that, in deciding what was the normal use of the land, any use which was instituted in contravention of planning control shall be ignored.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page 11, line 21, to leave out from "which," to end of line 22, and to insert:
was unoccupied on the seventh day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, and has not been occupied since that date.
Clause 9 (5, c) provides that land which is unoccupied on the appointed day may revert to its last known use without any planning permission, provided that it has been unoccupied for a period of at least 10 years before the appointed day. The effect of this Amendment is to permit reversion to the last known use provided that the land has been unoccupied since

7th January, 1937—during the 10-year period before the date of publication of the English Bill. A similar Amendment to this one was made in Committee upstairs to the First Schedule to the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(Development orders.)

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page 12, line 10, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 11.
This Amendment should be read together with the two following Amendments in page 12, lines 15 and 24. Subsection (4) of Clause 10 enables the Secretary of State, by a development Order, to suspend any enactment in the interests of proper planning. The Subsection might, however, be construed as confining the power of suspension to acts passed and regulations made before the passing of the Bill. The present Amendment would enable the Secretary of State to-suspend regulations, orders or bylaws made after the passing of the Bill under Acts passed before that date. The Amendment also provides for the power to direct that all enactments shall not apply or shall only apply subject to-modification. This power to modify is a new provision which we think will be useful in the future.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: This is a very great extension of what I think we must always watch very carefully—delegation of power to a Minister to make alterations to Acts of Parliament and other enactments, without even publishing or submitting to this House the alterations he makes. We did not take strong exception to the original Subsection, because that merely enabled enactments to be suspended. That would probably not be done without good cause, and does not introduce much complication. But here we have a power, not only to suspend, but to modify to an indefinite extent. If we are to have an Act of Parliament modified in one direction here and another there, all certainty is gone. We do not know whether these modifications are going to be published. If someone sees something taking place on somebody else's property, how is he to know whether what the other person is doing is legal or illegal? It may be that the other person may have up his sleeve some modification under an order which may not be a general order; it may be a special


order for a particular subject. To allow a Government Department to make one law for one place and another for another, and not even to publish or submit it to this House, is really going a very long way indeed.
The hon. Gentleman did not explain what was the necessity for this. He merely said it would be useful. Of course, in one sense, it will be useful, because he can give away what he likes in any direction. But, in another sense, it will be very much the reverse, because if we are going to have a variety of practice according to the person who gives the permission, or according to the district in which it is given, we shall get into confusion. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would be able to tell us the real need for this. I am afraid it is the old story that if one gives them an inch, they take an ell. Every time Government Departments are given some small chance of going their own way and altering what has been done by this House, then the next time they ask for more. There is no stopping them. This sort of thing has got to come to an end sometime.
We are getting a little tired of the way in which this power is being extended to Government Departments to play fast and loose with what this House does, and with no control by this House over the action of the Departments. These Orders cannot be prayed against. I do not know whether they can be discovered by the ordinary person, or whether they are even to be published. I hope the hon. Gentleman will answer that point. I do not think that they come under Statutory Rules and Orders. If I want to find out the extent to which the provision under an Act of Parliament has been modified in other cases, so that I can ask for a similar modification in my own case, where do I find what the Department has done in the past? If the hon. Gentleman could tell us that, it would go some way to meeting our troubles, because it would then be possible to see what the policy of the Department is. Unless these Orders are easily discoverable, I think tins is indeed going too far.

Mr. Buchanan: After all, there is no substance in saying, "You shall do this for one side, but you shall not do it for another." The real point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is raising is

that these things should not be done without the House of Commons being made aware of them. That is legitimate criticism. My answer is that in each case, unless an Order is covered by the Second Schedule, which is limited in extent, the Order must not only be published, but must be the subject of an affirmative Resolution. On page 12, line 23, hon. Members will see these words:
provided that, without prejudice to the foregoing provision, where any such order makes provision for suspending any enactment contained in a public general Act (other than any of the excepted enactments specified in the Second Schedule to this Act)"—
That applies to this case—
the order shall be of no effect until that provision is approved.
It does not only involve placing the Order on the Table, but this House must approve it. Therefore, it is a very salutary power.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Does it apply to the special Orders as well as the general ones?

Mr. Buchanan: Yes.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 12, line 15, at end, insert:
a development order may direct that any enactment passed before the passing of this Act, or any regulations, orders or bye-laws made (whether before or after the passing of this Act) under any such enactment shall not apply to any development specified in the order or shall apply thereto subject to any such modifications as may be so specified.
Line 24, leave out "suspending," and insert "excluding or modifying."—[Mr Buchanan.]

CLAUSE 14.—(Applications to determine whether planning permission required.)

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Lord Advocate.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in Order to ask you the reason for not calling the Amendment on Clause 12, page 14, line 20, to leave out "distribution of industry," and to insert:
development of industry in Scotland"?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Speaker has not selected that Amendment, no doubt for good reasons.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Of course, I shall not wish to press the point if Mr. Speaker has ruled that we cannot discuss that Amendment, but this is a matter upon which a specific assurance was made in Committee.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss the reasons of Mr. Speaker who, of course, has full power under the Standing Orders in selecting or not selecting any particular Amendment. Mr. Speaker has decided, no doubt for quite good reasons, that this Amendment should not be selected. That being the case, I have no alternative but to proceed with the next Amendment.

Mr. Henderson) Stewart: Would it be in Order for me to move the Adjournment of the House in order that the Government may explain—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Certainly not. The matter is not for the Government, anyway. The matter is one entirely for Mr. Speaker's discretion.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Mr. J. S. C. Reid rose�ž—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I would remind the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Stewart), and the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid), in case he should consider pursuing the matter, that the matter is not discussable.

Mr. Reid: I agree. Perhaps I might be allowed to make one remark, on a point of Order, so as to clear the point? Of course, it will be impossible for us to accept assurances in future, if we do not get an opportunity of raising matters again here.

Mr. Buchanan: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you have allowed the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make an observation. I have not denied the right of hon. Members to discuss the Amendment. I have nothing to do with it. The implication is that, in some way or another, we on this side are preventing discussion. That suggestion I refute.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Reid rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Unless the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to withdraw the suggestion he has made, I cannot allow the matter to be discussed further in any shape or form.

Mr. Reid: If I may, I propose to explain that I made no such suggestion. I merely thought it well to convey to the hon. Gentleman what would have to be our attitude in future, without imputing any sort of blame to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Lord Advocate.

The Lord Advocate: 1 beg to move, in page 16, line 17, to leave out from "person," to "would," in line 20, and to insert:
who proposes to carry out any operations on land or make any change in the use of land wishes to have it determined whether those operations or the making of that change in the use of land.
This is a drafting Amendment consequential upon the deletion in Committee, of reference in Clause 11 to classes of persons by whom application for planning permission may be made.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 15.— [Supplementary provisions as to grant of planning permission.]

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I beg to move, in page 17, line 7, to leave out "purposes," and to insert "class or classes of purpose."
This was a matter which was raised in Committee, and it was thought, I think in all quarters of the Committee, that the definition required some reconsideration, because, without that, there was great doubt as to what were the purposes, and how narrowly the particular purposes might be defined. We thought it was better to put in "class or classes of purpose" to make sure that the definition would be pretty wide. The point is, as the House is, no doubt, aware, that when planning permission is granted for the erection of a building, the permission may specify the purpose for which the building is to be used; and our object is to make certain that that will be done in a very broad way, so that it will say whether it is for shop or business purposes, or for residence, or for some broad purpose of that sort. The application would be for a commercial office or for a draper's shop, or something of that sort, and would make it clear that the permission would be for the shop, or offices, as the case might be. The person who applies for the permission necessarily says what he wants to use it for. If he is a draper, he obviously says he wants to use the thing as a draper's shop. But unless the permission is made a good deal wider than that, when the time comes when he wishes to move to larger premises, and Wants to realise on his present premises


—or his executors want to realise on those premises—and if the new person to use the premises is not a draper at all. but an ironmonger, or something else altogether, it will be necessary to go back to get a planning permission, and pay another sum. That would be ridiculous I think the hon. Gentleman was sympathetic to that case—

Mr. Buchanan: No.

Mr. Reid: I must have been giving too much credit to the hon. Gentleman, but I certainly thought that his view was—and I submit now to the House that the view of the House ought to be—that if a man had paid his charge and got his permission for a shop, then, provided he did not want to increase the size of the shop or alter its design, he ought to be allowed in future to use those premises for any kind of shop—except a kind of shop which he is not allowed to put in under public health regulations and the like. There are certain places where one is not allowed to have a butcher's shop or a fishmonger's; and that will persist whatever we do in this Bill. But there is no reason why one should not change from being a draper to being an ironmonger without paying another development charge, surely? Surely the development charge is not going to be so narrowly calculated as to be one figure for a draper and another for an ironmonger, so that if a man changes from being the one to being the other, he has to pay the balance between the two charges? It may be that the hon. Gentleman has a case for saying—though I do not think so—that we ought to have some control over the number of shops—�ž

Mr. Buchanan: No.

Mr. Reid: —or over the particular kind of shops in a particular street. But if that is not his view—and he says it is not—then, honestly, I do not see why he should object to this Amendment. Is the Government's purpose to make money for the Government out of the change? Is it to control the number of drapers' shops in the district? If it is not one or the other of these hampering controls at all, I do submit that this and the following Amendment—which is precisely the same Amendment, proposed to be made in line 8 as well as in line 7—ought to be accepted, unless the hon. Gentleman has some good reason he has not yet disclosed.

Mr. Buchanan: I wonder if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would excuse me making this personal reference to him? The more I sit here the more I remember my callow days spent in the Glasgow High Courts with the right hon. and learned Gentleman as the procurator, and myself as the criminal in the dock. Because with everything I do the question arises: "What are you going to get in the way of money." Let me assure him that that is not what is in my mind. I am sorry the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. John Henderson) is not present, because what I had in mind is what happens in the city, part of the representation of which he and I share, he in the West and myself in another part. We must give local people some power in these matters without their being cribbed, cabined and confined. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says: "Here is a butcher's shop I want it to be changed into an ironmonger's shop." In my own place, what happened was that overnight a butcher's shop was turned into a cobbler's shop, much to the annoyance of everybody near at hand, as well as spoiling one of the finest streets in the country. Huge machines were installed, without anything being added to the shop. Overnight into this first-class residential quarter they moved powerful machines, with a shocking effect on the street, as anybody who knows that area will appreciate. The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) knows it, because it is in his Division, namely, the Victoria Road district of the City of Glasgow.
I will not stand that, and I trust that other hon. Members will not stand it. That is what we want to avoid in this respect, apart from the Public Health Acts. There have been baker's shops, conducted on very limited lines, and the whole atmosphere has been changed suddenly, while still nominally retaining the baker's shop, with a consequent shock to the residents in tenement localities. They are the people of whom I am thinking in this regard—the people in the tenement localities. The one safeguard in this connection is not the Government at all, but the authorities who are administering these provisions. In my view, they will continue to administer them as they have done constantly in the past, with a fair measure of justice and equality.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The strange tiling is that in the course of his speech the Joint Under-Secretary has made the case for the Amendment.

Mr. Buchanan: No.

Mr. Stewart: I think he has, with respect. And if he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow he will see that that is so. What did he say to us? He said: "We do not want to do more than give the local authorities the power to indicate the general class of shop."

Mr. Buchanan: No, I have not. It is not only the class of shop but the particular shop.

Mr. Stewart: That is new. That is not what the hon. Gentleman said before. His case was that a butcher's shop was turned into an industrial factory. That is exactly what we want to do. We are quite agreeable to giving local authorities power to say it should be a shop or a factory; or that it shall be some kind of commercial shop. These are two distinct classes, for which we are asking in the Amendment; that is precisely what we do want. I do not think the hon. Member would want to give a local authority power to say: "You must not have a baker's shop. You must have an ironmonger's shop," or something of that description. Surely, that is asking too much? If the hon. Gentleman asks merely for a general classification of shops, then I really do not know why he does not accept the Amendment, because that is all we are asking. Would not he look at it again? I think that in essence we are agreed upon this. I do not think the words at present in the Bill, if Interpreted by anyone else, would bear the same meaning as the hon. Gentleman has put upon them. I accept what he says; I accept that that is his intention. That is what the words mean. I submit that the words we propose more accurately translate his meaning.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Bechervaise: What is the difference between ?classes of purposes "and" purposes"?

Mr. Stewart: I should have thought that it was quite simple. It is the difference which was shown by the Joint Under-Secretary. The industrial concern is one class; another class of purposes is the baker's shop, the butcher's

shop, or some other kind of shop. It is wrong to give a local authority power to say that there can be a grocer's shop but not a baker's shop.

Mr. C. Williams: It is very interesting to hear the Joint Under-Secretary defending the amenities of the better districts. I think we are all trying to achieve the same purpose. What we all wish to ensure is that an area shall be for shopping purposes rather than for manufacturing purposes. It seems to be largely a question of words. Both sides of the House seem to wish to achieve the same purpose. In the circumstances, it might be a good thing to see whether words cannot be found to cover the meaning we want. None of us wish to see the kind of thing the Joint Under-Secretary mentioned happening in the future. On the other hand, we do not wish to have the use of an individual building restricted too narrowly. Is it not possible to get a form of words to meet the purposes both sides of the House have in mind?

Sir W. Darling: I think the Joint Under-Secretary, from his experiences, can now see more reasons for this Amendment than he did when he first saw it on the Order Paper. I suggest that he has seen the development of many suburbs in the great city to which he belongs. The first development is not the final development. When the new suburb comes into being, the kind of shop opened in the first instance is probably an "a things," but, as the population fills up, the original "a' things" or haberdashery shop becomes a shop of a more exact character, and other shops are built up around it, until there are adequate shops to meet the demand. If this is followed, the original purpose is apparently the final purpose for a very long period of time.
I have in mind the little shop failing to get adequate custom to support it, which is bound to fall into some manufacturing process, such as a cobbler's shop, to the detriment of the area. I have seen that happen more than once. In Edinburgh, we have seen corporation shops taken over, not for shopping purposes, but for residential purposes, with the result that the original intentions of the local authority have been defeated. I suggest that if they were guided by such words as "purposes or class of purposes," they would have greater latitude. In Scotland, there are scores of buildings designated as


masonic halls which were erected some 40 or 50 years ago. These were places for public meetings, but they have long since departed from their original and narrow association, now being public halls in the fullest sense of the term. They are used for dances, cinemas, public entertainments, even political meetings. It seems to me that if such a hall was being built by a body specifically designated for that purpose, this Subsection would limit it to that narrow use. If the Government accepted the Amendment it would not be so limited. The local authority, if they had the power, would be able to widen the designation, and would be given the measure of freedom which the expanding or contracting character of the community demanded.
May I refer to a further instance, which is well known to me from my experience as a Scottish shopkeeper? The Scottish co-operative societies are alive and expanding. They feel their way. They do not open large and extensive premises in new areas. Throughout Scotland, because of the limitation in housing, there are wooden buildings in many of the new developing suburbs which belong to the co-operative societies, and from which vans distribute goods. These would be designated under the Bill for a specific purpose, and the societies would seem to be hindered in developing. Their interests would be restricted, if not actually extinguished. In a Scotland which is developing, there should be the maximum freedom, through this Measure, to local authorities to control essential planning.

Mr. Stephen: I am in difficulty about the words of the Amendment, because they do not appear to do what the Opposition suppose they will do. They propose to leave out, "purposes," and to insert, "class or classes of purpose." "Purpose" is a general term, but it seems to me that the words, "class of purpose," introduce a limitation. The Clause says:
Where planning permission is granted for the erection of a building the grant of permission may specify the purposes for which the building may be used.…
What would any lawyer read into the word "purposes"? I, as a lawyer, do not take it to relate to the provision of drapery shops, but to a shopkeeper. If I were to put in an application I would say that my building was for the purpose of providing shops, and stores in connec-

tion with that shop. It would not be a question of whether a draper was going to give place to a bookshop or a candlestick maker. I take it that the authority would require to specify what kind of shop was meant by the word "purposes." That power under "purposes" might be too wide, but any changes in the form should not be allowed. It is worth while for the Government to consider whether there should not be some alteration of the words.

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) has said that the word "purposes" is wider than the words proposed in the Amendment. It is because there can be introduced under that word anything, and it would allow for specifying that there must be a baker's shop or a grocer's shop that we put in "class of purposes." We want to see the Clause worded so that there shall be permission for shops or for factories. I thought, when we had a previous discussion on this matter, that I was in full agreement with the Joint Under-Secretary. I agree with him that on no account should a shop be turned into industrial premises, and that is what has been happening, to the intense annoyance of those who live round it. The hon. Gentleman said that we ought to treat the local authorities as reasonable persons. They are to a large extent reasonable persons, but there are times when they do things which cause the greatest annoyance in certain localities. It is the people living in the localities who really know what is best for themselves, and if a shop is put in a locality where it is not necessary, that shop is quickly removed because it goes bankrupt. I suggest that there are many instances in which the local authorities are not the best judges of what is required in their particular localities. We have known of instances where a local authority has had a grievance against some locality—perhaps because of the person who represents it—and it vents its displeasure by restricting facilities to that locality. I have known cases of that kind to happen, and here the power is being put directly into the hands of a local authority, and it is a very great power. I am fully with the hon. Gentleman in what he wants to stop, but, at the same time, I think the local authorities should not have this complete power


of designating exactly the type of shop that should be put in a particular place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept the wording of the Amendment.

Mr. Buchanan: The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), says that the Clause may be too wide as it stands; therefore, make it more strict. My answer is that the local authorities on the whole will be the best judges as to strictness and fairness. It may be that the words are rather wide, but I believe in trusting the local authorities. I think I know the object of the Amendment which has been put down, but I think that the words would allow the abuse to go on. I am advised, and I know from my own practical knowledge, that it would not be advisable to accept the words put down by the Opposition. I do not wish to do hon. Members opposite any injustice in the matter. They think that a local authority may use these powers in a harsh way and prevent a private trader from getting a shop as against a co-operative society. That, I feel, is at the back of their minds.

Let us see what happens. When I look at the immense powers which local authorities, have I am surprised at what the Opposition say. They have got increasing powers throughout Scotland. They own all the new shops in the housing estates and they can allocate them to whom they like, while at the end of 12 months they can turn them out if they so desire. I think of these which are in my native city and owned by the local authority—now run by school friend? of mine—and they are not allocated in a prejudicial fashion. Every person gets a fair share. They have more power than is given under this Bill. I defy anyone to say that the local authorities who own shops do not let them equitably and reasonably. My plea is for the Opposition to make up their mind. A minute ago they were criticising me because I was forcing things on them, and here I am asking them to give the local authorities a greater measure of control

Question put, "That 'purposes' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 236; Noes, 73.

Amendment made: In page 17, line 12, leave out from "granted," to "then," in line 14, and insert "for any develop ment."—[Mr. Buchanan.]

CLAUSE 47.—(Temporary provisions for eliminating special value attributable to vacant possession.)

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I beg to move, in page 53, line 25, after "section", to insert:
or the interest to be acquired is the interest of an Owner-occupier of a building within the meaning of this section.
I think it would save the time of the House if at the same time I referred to the further Amendment in page 54, line 45. Clause 47, makes temporary provision for eliminating the enhanced value of land between now and the notional date of 1st January, 1954, owing to the value of vacant possesion at the present time and in the ascertainable future. What is provided is that if land is being compulsorily acquired during that period, the enhanced value attributable to vacant possession, and the enhanced value of buildings, because of vacant possession at the present time, should not have to be paid by the acquiring authority. Provision has already been made for the exclusion of agricultural land and buildings from that provision.
My right hon. Friends and I want to go further and to exclude land or buildings belonging to an owner-occupier, and we define what we mean by an owner-occupier in the further Amendment in page 54, line 45. The position I think will be quite clear to the House. If a local authority is acquiring land which, by definition, includes buildings, it is to give an owner-occupier from whom it acquires, market value for its present use. The Government say, under this Clause, "Well, that was right, but at the present time we would have to give a very much enhanced value where we are getting vacant possession because everything is up in price." That is quite true, but they say that in the limited period between now and a date when notice to treat is served up to 1st January, 1954, they will give instead a restricted value determined in accordance with the provisions of this Clause under which the notional lease idea is introduced.
That is all right from the point of view of the Government, but what about the point of view of the individual whose property is acquired? Take a man who owns a house which he has had taken from him compulsorily and who is given less than the fair market value. He has to go out into the cold hard world and re-house himself with the money he has received, and when all the prices are raised against him. The Government recognise that prices have gone up, so they say, "We will give you less than the enhanced value." Yet this man has to go into the market and find another house. There should be some provision in this matter. The Government have made provision for the owner-occupier of agricultural land. Why cannot they make provision for the owner-occupier of a house? That is stating it as briefly as I can.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman will be in sympathy with this Amendment. It is simply facing the practical difficulty which exists for these people who are dispossessed. They have to find other accommodation, and they cannot find it unless they are compensated at the existing value of their house. There is no answer to it. You simply cannot get accommodation today unless you get from your existing property the present-day value for it. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept this Amendment.

The Lord Advocate: As far as the agricultural owner-occupier is concerned, we have gone a long way, but it is very dim-cult to exclude actual owner-occupiers from the notional lease provisions any further without having to make concessions in other ways.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: It is very difficult for the owner-occupier unless that is done.

The Lord Advocate: The same sort of situation arises under the 1945 Act. There one was driven to make concessions to other persons. Once one begins to make concessions to other persons, one begins to get into difficulties. What about the owner of war-damaged property who is anxious to re-occupy it as soon as he can rebuild, and various other types of that kind? Once one begins to get into


classes of that sort, one has to consider the intention of the person in relation to the house he is occupying. The real trouble in the owner-occupier case is not so much the monetary problem as the difficulty of getting alternative accommodation. That is the real practical problem. I would remind the House that the new basis of compensation is really much more favourable than the basis originally put forward. We have gone a considerable distance to meet the owner-occupier in this way. I am afraid the difficulties of going further are too great.

Commander Galbraith: May I put this question? Is it the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument that private persons have got to be fined, so to speak, because of a public need, that in fact the burden which should be borne by the community has to be borne by private individuals?

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is going to treat us to a completely illogical argument of this character, and to admit that he is refusing to do justice for one class of case because that would require something else to be done in another and smaller class of case, we cannot on this side of the House accept that kind of thing. I will resume the matter in a few sentences. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made no attempt to show that injustice is not being done in a large number of cases where owner-occupiers of non-agricultural houses are concerned. Therefore, I take it as common ground in the House that the Bill as it stands is going to do injustice in that type of case. If any hon. Gentleman wishes to interrupt, I would be glad if he would do so.

Mr. Rankin: If that remark is directed to me, I have no intention of interrupting. I thought the right hon. and learned Member was resuming his seat, and I meant to say a word or two.

Mr. Reid: I saw the hon. Gentleman half rise and I invited him, as I thought perhaps he had a point to make. There is no doubt that if the Bill is allowed to stand as it is, the owner-occupiers are not going to get the present market value of their houses, even though it is obvious from their circumstances that they must get another house to replace the one taken

away from them, and therefore, these owner-occupiers—and they are the great majority—who have to find another house for their families are being given much less money than will be required to buy that other house. If that is not injustice, I would like to know what is. That being admitted, the Government are deliberately imposing injustice on this section of the community. What is the argument? The only argument is that if we do justice to these people, there are a few others left in the cold, and we will have to think of something for them. They are only a few. The only class mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman were people suffering from war damage, who are very infrequent in Scotland, and very easily dealt with. It is inconceivable that it should be said in this House that justice should be refused to 95 per cent. because it is difficult to give it to the other 5 per cent. of borderline cases. If that is the argument of the Socialist Government, we mean to go into the Lobby against them.

Mr. Rankin: I would like to say a word on this Amendment, because frankly, when I looked at it, it seemed to me on the face of it to be a reasonable Amendment to put forward. If I took it simpliciter, I would urge my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate to have another look at it and to see what can be done; but—there is a "but"—I do not grasp the implications of the statement made by the Lord Advocate. I ask him to say now that if this Amendment were accepted, it would have, by its acceptance, repercussions of a most serious nature, and that, while in itself it may be simple and reasonable, these repercussions would be serious. If that is the case and he is prepared to say so, it would certainly help me in whatever decision I make.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: I would like to know what are the implications of the "repercussions" of which the Lord Advocate has given a hint, a hint which, as I interpret it, meant that the repercussions would be minor compared with the fairness that would be the immediate effect of our Amendment. I am not a Member of long experience, but I never heard a more lame excuse given for the attitude taken by a Government than that given by the Lord Advocate in this case. He was clearly uneasy and unhappy, and I sympathise with him because I under-


stand his discomfort. He said that it was very difficult to make provision—thereby implicitly agreeing that provision should be made—because of the difficulties that would arise, and that the Government would find themselves pressed in other directions. In other words, the Government would, in fact, be in a difficulty; but this Government ought by now to be used to being in difficulties. They are pressed by them on all sides, but they fob off a small matter of this kind by saying, "We, the great Socialist Government, cannot get ourselves out of the difficulty while we have inflicted on the country thousands of greater difficulties." That is an argument which I, for one, absolutely fail to understand, and cannot accept.
11.0 p.m.
This is a temporary need, but let us admit that it may recur. However, it is not a situation which is going to continue in perpetuity, and, therefore, it is a temporary business for a small section of the community. Yet, with their eyes open, the Government recognise that they are inflicting a hardship and, with their eyes open, they propose to continue to inflict that hardship, because they have created difficulties which they have failed to solve. The Lord Advocate also said that this was not a monetary problem, because even ii more money were given he indicated, by implication, that the dispossessed owner of a house would fail to find an alternative place. We cannot accept that explanation either. The Government are going to dispossess an owner-occupier and say to him, "It does not matter how we do it, you are not going to find another house." That was, in effect, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument.

Mr. McKie: I must confess that in the last two years I have heard some very lame speeches from the Treasury Bench, but I do not think I have ever heard in this Parliament a poorer case than that put up by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. In effect, he said absolutely nothing. It was with great difficulty that I followed his subdued tone. I can quite understand that, because he was very bashful in presenting a very bad case. I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin). I was buoyed up into hoping,

as I listened to the beginning of his speech, that we were going to see on this occasion from the placid third Bench—always noted for the docility with which it follows the Government—a free and independent point of view. I thought we were going to see an independent point of view which would even compel the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I think the hon. Gentleman should start dealing with the Amendment before the House.

Mr. McKie: With all respect, that is what I am dealing with, in my own way. I was saying that I was buoyed up by listening to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tradeston, and I thought that he would go into the Lobby with us in default of a reasonable explanation by the Lord Advocate of his reasons for resisting this Amendment, because the hon. Gentleman asked the Lord Advocate to give his reasons. It is true, however, that in the concluding sentences of his speech, the hon. Gentleman associated himself more or less in toto with what the Lord Advocate had said. In hushed voice he told us that, inevitably, there would be serious repercussions. I ask him what repercussions there would be in granting this very modest request, namely, that the people who are being expropriated, the owner-occupiers, shall not be mulcted, because that is what it will amount to, as the owner-occupiers will not be receiving any enhanced value. They will be doubly mulcted. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Tradeston cannot run away from it, because there is no doubt that he will have several cases in his own constituency. These people will come under the operation of this Bill without an enhanced value being given to them. Then where will they be? They will be left to drift into the world without being able to obtain new houses—houses are difficult to obtain anywhere—having been denied them by the Government which especially claims to be speaking for the working classes. Owner-occupiers are small people of the working class. No one can say where the working class begins or ends, and these are of the working class.
The hon. and learned member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) seems to think this is a matter for hilarity. I


would have thought he would have associated himself with the words I was saying, because many people in Hammersmith will be in the same category as the people of whom I am speaking. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman seriously to reflect again, and to realise that it would be much the wiser course to associate himself with us in the view we have expressed, rather than to espouse the course he has. I hope the Joint Under-Secretary will perhaps make another reply. I think it is due to us on this side. These are people who will be deprived of their homes; certain numbers will be deprived of their homes without being given an enhanced value.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon Member is now repeating what he has said two or three times before.

Mr. McKie: I had no intention of so doing. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to tell us what he proposes to do to find these people new quarters, and having deprived them of any enhanced value, to protect them in the market from the prices which will be demanded of them.

Mr. Buchanan: May I say a word or two about the allegedly inadequate statement made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate. The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) has made similar claims about every speech we make, so it does not very much matter. The point here is this: The owner-occupier gets full market value. Let us get that clear. What we do not pay is market value plus the right of immediate entry. The house which can be sold with immediate entry has an additional, inflated value: that is different from the house that is sold without immediate entry.

Commander Galbraith: Supposing a man has to leave one town to go to another; he has to give vacant possession, and he has to get a different house. He has to pay the price for vacant possession in another house.

Mr. Buchanan: I was going to deal with that point. We pay full market value. What we do not make any attempt to do—I say this frankly—is to assess payment with immediate entry attached to it. I say that frankly because hon. Members are talking about the matter. I say that we wish we could have got our people

in the past as reasonable terms as the owner-occupier is offered today.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. Gentleman has made that point with some heat, as he has made points once or twice before. He says that the Government pay full market value. Under Clause 47 they do nothing of the sort. Unless he is familiar with that Clause, he ought not to put forward that claim. Clause 47 introduces a notional lease, the lease expiring on 1st January, 1954.

Mr. Buchanan: We are saying that we are paying full market value. We say to the owner-occupier that he should be provided with suitable alternative accommodation. That is a tremendous step forward. I wish I had seen the ordinary shopkeeper, for whom on both sides of the House there is human sympathy, getting this guarantee that he would have an alternative place to which to go. We are giving full market value plus an alternative place to go, and in this way we are giving a liberal treatment.

Commander Galbraith: Will the Joint Under-Secretary really deal with the question I have raised? What happens to the man who has to get out of his house and move to another town and get vacant possession there? Is he being paid fair compensation?

Mr. Buchanan: We are not making him move, but we are saying he will get a house similar to the one he has got.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: How?. Can we be absolutely sure that anyone turned out of his house will get a similar house of size and quality? There are not the houses to be had.

Mr. Buchanan: We are saying in this case that he will get it, otherwise action will be taken; and I wish the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite would recognise these facts. We think that the treatment of the owner-occupier is comparatively decent. I was asked about the repercussions. Once you grant any kind of concession, you are driven to go further.

Commander Galbraith: We are asking for justice, not concessions.

Mr. Buchanan: Take the position of the farmer. The moment we granted it to him, the nurserymen would want it.


[An HON. MEMBER: "What about the owner-occupier?"] We are saying there are classes of people with cases just as irresistible.

Commander Galbraith: They are not many.

Mr. Buchanan: The bombed-out persons are another case, and I am surprised that the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) says that there are not many.

Commander Galbraith: But that is the very point I am rubbing in. The Joint Under-Secretary knows he is being unjust, and he continues to be unjust. I am surprised at him.

Mr. Buchanan: What is all the barking about? I am keeping my temper with the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok.

Commander Galbraith: I find it very difficult to keep mine with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Buchanan: At least the hon. and gallant Member is alleged to have been born a gentleman, and to have had some schooling which I never had, and he should pay tribute to that education, which I was unfortunately denied. At least I never had his upbringing, and if I could not conduct myself better than he is doing I would leave it alone. We are being just and fair, and are paying full market value.

An Hon. Member: You are not.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the Minister should be allowed to make his speech without these constant interruptions.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: On a point of Order. The Minister is making a travesty of the facts.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of Order. The hon. Member, as he moved the Amendment, will have, if he chooses, the right to reply.

Mr. Buchanan: With the notional lease we are paying full market value. I

think we are putting the whole case reasonably fairly and properly, and I trust my hon. Friends to support us.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The Joint Under-Secretary has said several times that the Government are paying full market value under Clause 47. May I remind the House of what, in fact, they are doing? They are saying that where a local authority acquires land compulsorily, under terms of notice to treat served before 1st January, 1954, they will not pay the full market value of a house with vacant possession; they will instead invent the fiction of a notional lease with a tenant who has to go out on or after 1st January, 1954. They are, therefore, eliminating the enhanced value which attaches to land at present owing to its scarcity value. They are therefore, in my submission, not paying the market value, or anything like the market value.
Our submission in Committee was to make a special concession in the case of an owner-occupier of agricultural land. We are asking the Government now to make that concession in respect of the owner-occupier of a house. They say they cannot do so. They recognise, I suppose, the justice of our claim, but they say—in some of the lamest speeches I have ever heard—that it would cause repercussions, and injustice here, there, or somewhere else. We say that a Government of planners ought to be able to plan to eliminate these injustices. It is monstrously wrong for an owner-occupier to have his property taken from him by the action of the State and not to be given sufficient compensation to enable him to go out into the cold world, where all the prices are raised against him—as admitted by the Government—and rehouse himself in a property comparable to the one he occupied before. That is the basis of our contention. There is no point in labouring the case. We can only show our great indignation in the Division Lobby.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 59; Noes, 186.

Division No. 301.]
AYES.
[9.47 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Colman, Miss G. M
Gunter, R. J.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Comyns, Dr. L.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Cooper, Wing-Comdr G.
Hale, Leslie


Allen, Scholeheld (Crewe)
Corbett, Mrs. F. K. (Camb well, N.W.)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R


Alpass, J. H.
Corbett, Lieut-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Attewell, H. C
Corlett, Dr. J.
Hardy, E. A.


Awbery, S. S.
Corvedale, Viscount
Harrison, J.


Ayles, W. H.
Crawley, A.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Baird, J.
Crossman, R. H. S
Hobson, C. R.


Balfour, A.
Daggar, G.
Holman, P.


Barstow, P. G.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Barton, C.
Davies, Hadyn (St. Panels, S W.)
House, G


Battley, J. R.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hoy, J.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Deer, G.
Hubbard, T.


Benson, G.
Diamond, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Berry, H.
Donovan, T.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Beswick, F.
Driberg, T E. N.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Bing, G. H. C.
Dugdale, J (W. Bromwich)
Irving, W. J


Blackburn, A. R
Dumpleton, C. W.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon G A


Blenkinsop, A
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Janner, B.


Blyton, W. R.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Jay, D. P. T


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Jeger, Dr. S. A (St. Pancras, S.E.)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L.P Exch'ge)
Fairhurst, F.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Farthing, W. J.
Keenan, W.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Field, Capt. W. J.
Kendall, W. D


Brooks, T. J. (Ruthwell)
Fletcher, E G M (Islington, E.)
Kenyon, C.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Follick, M.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Kinley, J.


Buchanan, G.
Gaitskell, H. T. N
Kirby, B. V


Burden, T W
Ganley, Mrs C S
Lang, G.


Burke, W. A.
Gibbins, J.
Lavers, S.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Gilzean, A
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Champion, A. J.
Gooch, E. G.
Leonard, W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Gordon-Walker, P. C
Leslie, J. R.


Cobb, F. A.
Greenwood, A. W J (Heywood)
Levy, B. W.


Cocks, F. S.
Grenfell, D. R.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Coldrick, W.
Grey, C. F.
Lindgren, G. S.


Collindridge, F.
Grierson, E.
Lipton, Lt.-Col M


Collins, V. J.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon J (Llanelly)
McAdam, W




McAllister, G
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


McEntee, V La I
Proctor, W. T
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


McGhee, H. G.
Randall, H. E
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Mack, J. D
Ranger, J
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Rankin, J
Thomas, I. O (Wrekin)


Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W)
Rees-Williams, D. R
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Maclean, N. (Govan)
Reeves, J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Thurtle, Ernest


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M
Tiffany, S.


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Robens, A.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Martin, J. H
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Usborne, Henry


Medland, H. M
Rogers, G. H. R.
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Mellish, R J
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Viant, S. P.


Messer, F.
Royle, C
Walkden, E.


Middleton, Mrs L
Scollan, T
Walker, G. H


Millington, Wing-Comdr E R
Shackleton, E. A. A
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Milchison, G. R
Sharp, Granville
Wallace, H. W.(Walthamstow, E.)


Monslow, W.
Shurmer, P
Weitzman, D.


Moody, A. S.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Morgan, Dr. H B
Simmons, C. J.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Morris, P (Swansea, W.)
Skeffington-Lodge, C. C
While, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Mart, D. L
Skinnard, F. W.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Moyle, A
Smith C. (Colchester)
Wilkins, W. A.


Nally, W.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Willey, F T. (Sunderland)


Nicholls, H R (Stratford)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Willey, O G. (Cleveland)


Noel-Baker, Capt F. E (Brentford)
Solley, L. J
Williams, J. L (Kelvingrove)


O'Brien, T.
Serensen, R. W
Williams, W R (Heston)


Oldfield, W. H
Sparks, J. A.
Williamson, T


Paget, R. T
Stamford, W
Willis, E.


Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Steele, T.
Wills, Mrs E A


Palmer, A M
Stephen, C.
Wyatt, W


Pargiter, G A
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Yates, V. F.


Parker, J
Strauss, G R (Lambeth, N.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Paton, J. (Norwich)
Stross, Dr. B
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Pearson, A.
Stubbs, A. E.
Zilliaous, K


Peart, T. F
Sylvester, G. O



Piratin, P.
Symonds, A. L
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Porter E (Warrington)
Taylor, H. B (Mansfield)
Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewell.




NOES


Astor, Hon. M.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W)
Rayner, Brig, R


Baldwin, A. E.
Hutchison, Col. J R (Glasgow, C.)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Birch, Nigel
Kerr, Sir J Graham
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Boles, Lt.-Col D. C. (Wells)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Boothby, R
Langford-Holt, J.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Bower, N
Lucas-Tooth St. H
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Co. W
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Strauss, H. G (English Universities)


Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col G
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Sutcliffe, H.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Crookshank, Capt Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'ddt?n, S.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O E
Maitland, Comdr J W
Teeling, William


Cuthbert, W. N
Marples, A. E.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N


Darling, Sir W Y
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Thorp, Lt.-Col R. A. F


Dower, Lt-Col A V G. (Penrith)
Maude, J C
Vane, W. M. F.


Drewe, C
Medlicott, F
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Dugdale, Maj Sir T. (Richmond)
Mellor, Sir J
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Fyfe, Rt Hon Sir D. P. M
Moore, Lt.-Col Sir I
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Gage, C.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D
Nicholson, G
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Winterton, Rt Hon. Earl


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Nutting, Anthony



Hare, Hon J. H. (Woodbridge)
Osborne, C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harvey, Air-Comdre A V
Plckthorn, K.
Mr. Studholme and


Haughton, S. G.
Raikes, H. V
Commander Agnew.


Headlam, Lieut-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Ramsay, Mai

Division No. 302.
AYES.
[11.19 p.m


Agnew, Cmdr P G
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Prescott, Stanley


Baldwin, A. E.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Rayner, Brig. R


Beamish, Maj T V. H
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Birch, Nigel
Head, Brig. A. H.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Boles, Lt.-Col D. C. (Wells)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Ropner, Col. L.


Boothby, R.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Bossom, A. C.
Hutchison, Col. J. R (Glasgow, C.)
Steddart-Scott, Col. M.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Keeling, E. H.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Sutcliffe, H


Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F


Crookshank, Capt. Rt Hon. H. F. C.
Macdonald, Sir P (I of Wight)
Wadsworth, G.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O E.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J


Cuthbert, W. N.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Darling, Sir W Y
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Drewe, C
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Mellor, Sir J



Fyfe, Rt. Hon Sir D. P. M.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gage, C.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Mr. Studholme and


Galbraith, Cmdr T. D.
Osborne, C
Major Ramsay.




NOES.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Ganley, Mrs C. S
Pargiter, G A


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Gibbins, J.
Parker, J.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Gilzean, A.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Alpass, J. H
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Pearson, A.


Attewell, H. C
Gordon-Walker, P. C
Peart, T. F.


Awbery, S. S
Greenwood, A. W. J (Heywood)
Piratin, P.


Baird, J
Grenfell, D R
Popplewell, E


Balfour A.
Grey, C. F
Forter E. (Warrington)


Barstow, P. G
Grierson, E
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Barton, C
Guy, W. H.
Pritt, D. N.


Bechervaise, A E.
Hale, Leslie
Proctor, W. T


Benson, G.
Hall, W. G.
Randall, H. E


Blackburn, A. R
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Ranger, J.


Blenkinsop, A
Harrison, J
Rankin, J


Blyton, W. R.
Hastings, Dr Somerville
Rees-Williams, D R


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Bowles, F. G (Nuneaton)
Herbison, Miss M
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pt Exch'ge)
Hobson, C. R.
Robens, A.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Holman, P
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
House, G.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hoy, J.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T
Hubbard, T.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Buchanan, G.
Irving, W. J
Royle, C.


Burden, T. W.
Janner, B
Scollan, T.


Burke, W. A.
Jeger, Dr S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Segal, Dr. S.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Champion, A. J
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Sharp, Granville


Cocks, F. S.
Keenan, W.
Shurmer, P.


Coldrick, W.
Kenyon, C.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Collindridge, F.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E
Simmons, C. J.


Collins, V. J.
Lang, G.
Skeffington, A. M


Colman, Miss G. M.
Lavers, S.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C


Corbet, Mrs. F K (Camp well, N.W.)
Leonard, W.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Lewis, A. W J. (Upton)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W)


Corvedale, Viscount
Lindgren, G. S
Snow, Capt. J W.


Crawley, A.
McAdam, W.
Solley, L. J


Crossman, R. H S
McAllister, G
Scrensen, R. W


Daggar, G.
Mack, J. D.
Sparks, J. A


Daines, P.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Stamford, W


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Maclean, N (Govan)
Steele, T.


Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Strauss, G. R (Lambeth, N.)


Deer, G.
Manning, Mrs. L (Epping)
Stubbs, A. E.


Diamond, J
Mathers, G
Sylvester, G. O


Donovan, T.
Mellish, R J.
Symonds, A. L.


Driberg, T E. N.
Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Mitchison, G R
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Monslow, W.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Ede, Rt Hon J. C.
Moody, A. S.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Edwards, W J. (Whitechapel)
Morris, P (Swansea, W.)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Mort, D. L
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Moyle, A.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Ewart, R.
Nally, W.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Fairhurst, F.
Nicholls, H R (Stratford)
Thurtle, Ernest


Farthing, W J
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Ungoed-Thomas, L


Field, Capt W. J
O'Brien, T
Usborne, Henry


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Orbach, M.
Vernon, Maj. W F


Fraser, T (Hamilton)
Paget, R. T
Walkden, E


Gaitskell, H T N
Palmer, A M F
Weitzman, D.







Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Yates, V. F.


Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)



Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Willis, E
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wilkins, W. A.
Wills, Mrs. E A
Mr. Michael Stewart and




Mr. Hannon.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 54, line 17, to leave out from the first "gardens," to "and," in line 19.
In the Committee, an Amendment was put down to leave out the words
a person of the labouring classes.
That would have meant a definition of agricultural land, including allotments or allotment gardens, and gardens exceeding one-quarter of an acre attached to a house. The reason gardens exceeding one-quarter of an acre, and so on, were included under the Bill originally was because they were regarded as being of the same character as allotments or allotment gardens. I sympathise with the criticism of the words
a person of the labouring classes.
which was taken from an earlier statute as a convenient way of describing this type of garden. But it seems best to strike out this type of garden, as it is comparatively unlikely that there will be many gardens of that type.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: This is a mean little Amendment. What the Government are doing here is depriving members of the labouring classes who happen to have a quarter of an acre of garden of their right to market value compensation. We had the argument out before over comparatively well-to-do people, and I suppose the Government now think that, because they are going to deprive other owner-occupiers of justice, they had better give the labouring classes a little of the same medicine. I trust the Government are getting near the end of this idea that they can do injustice when they feel inclined. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says there are not many cases, and the simplest plan is just to let them stew.

Mr. C. Williams: I would like to congratulate the Government on what I think is really rather an honest performance. For a very long while they have attached the name "Labour" to themselves; but they do not look much like it. They never have; and I congratulate them on dropping for once this name "Labour," which really does not apply to any Socialist Member of Parliament. The use

of that name goes back to the days when there were Labour members. I congratulate the Government most sincerely as far as this Amendment is concerned, and I hope it is an omen for the future.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: May I, with permission, say this: it is a desirable thing to earn the reputation of being quite a cool, calculating Member. If the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) feels that we are going too far, I would like to say that we do not want to deprive what one might call the ordinary working man of his bit of ground. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks of our being mean. I am prepared to discuss the matter with him between now and the time when this Bill reaches another place to see if we can find some other phrase. I have thought of "working class," but that is not the best term either. I do not want to include large houses with gardens. If there is an alternative phrase that can be found, I guarantee that I will look at it with the right hon. and learned Gentleman with as much sympathy as anyone else. Perhaps the best possible man to deal with this is the Secretary of State himself. I have no love of the phrase "labouring classes." That is why we dropped it. On the other hand, I do not want to be driven too far in the other direction. If there is a compromise which we can arrive at between now and the time when the Bill goes to another place, I will look at it.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has realised at last that there is a limit to the injustices that this House will tolerate. I will, of course, cooperate with him in removing as much injustice as we can. I am glad that there is one Member on the Government Bench who will co-operate to remove as much injustice as possible.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 54, line 37, to leave out "unencum bered."
This Amendment goes with the next Amendment in line 38. This is one of the alternatives described in Clause 47 rela-


tive to the calculation of rent under a notional lease. These two Amendments make it clear that the capital value of premises will be assessed with due regard to any servitudes or other restrictions affecting the land on the date of the notice to quit.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 54, line 38, after"dominium utile," insert:
free from incumbrances but subject to any servitude or other restrictions affecting the land on the date of the notice to quit."—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 16.—(Obligation to purchase land on refusal of planning permission in certain cases.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 17, line 40, to leave out from

"state" to the end of line 43, and to insert "and."
This Amendment does three things. First, it omits from Clause 16 (1, a) the words
whether by reason of deterioration or obsolescence of buildings or the occurrence of war damage or otherwise.
The reference to deterioration, obsolescence or war damage was inserted for


the purposes of illustration; and the words "or otherwise" were intended to extend the Clause to land incapable of reasonably beneficial use for any other reasons. The inclusion of the words "or otherwise" might, however, limit the Clause to cases similar to cases of deterioration, obsolescence or war damage. The intention of the Clause is better fulfilled by leaving the words "incapable of reasonably beneficial use" completely unqualified.
Secondly, the Amendment omits the words "of development" in line 40. This is to make it clear that the Clause extends to agricultural land and is not confined to land already built on. This was always the intention of the Clause but it is desirable to make this intention plain. Thirdly, the Amendment makes it clear that the condition specified in paragraph (a) must be satisfied in all cases, that is, the land must be incapable of reasonably beneficial use as it stands; and in addition it must be shown that the land cannot be made reasonably beneficial by redeveloping it in accordance with any permission which has been granted, that is, under paragraph (b) or paragraph (c)

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 17, line 48, leave out "and."—[The Lord Advocate.]

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Westwood: I beg to move, in page 18, line 48, after "it," to insert:
either in relation to the whole or in relation to any part of the land to which it relates.
Subsection (2, c) says that where the Secretary of State thinks it is expedient that another local authority should acquire for the purpose of any of their functions land in respect of which a purchase notice has been served, he may modify the purchase notice by substituting the other authority for the local planning authority. There may be cases where the other authority requires only part of the land in question, and this Amendment enables the Secretary of State to modify the purchase notice as regards either the whole or any part of the land.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 17.—(Compensation for refusal of planning permission in certain cases.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 19, line 28, after "in," to insert "Part II of."
This Amendment and the following Amendments are necessary because of the alterations which have been made to the Third Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In fine 29, leave out from "Act," to "permission,? in line 30.—[The Lord Advocate.]

Further Amendment made: In page 20 line 10, at end, insert:
or does not take effect in relation to any part of the land."—[The Lord Advocate.]

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 20, line 14, to leave out from beginning, to second "the," in line 22, and to insert:
within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations under this Act that the permitted development value of that interest or as the case may be of that interest so far as it relates to that part of the land is less than its compulsory purchase value.
This Amendment and the following Amendments are designed to clarify the effect of Subsection (3).

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 23, leave out "that person," and insert, "the person entitled to that interest."

In line 25, at end, insert:
(4) For the purposes of the last foregoing Subsection the expression 'permitted development value,' in relation to an interest in land in respect of which any such direction as is mentioned in that Subsection has been given, means the value of that interest calculated with regard to the direction and to any determination of the Central Land Board under Subsection (4) of Section sixty-four of this Act, but on the assumption that no permission would be granted under this Part of this Act otherwise than in accordance with the direction; and the expression 'compulsory purchase value,' in relation to any such interest means the value of that interest as it would be assessed in accordance with the provisions of Section forty-six of this Act for the purpose of ascertaining the compensation payable on a purchase thereof in pursuance of the purchase notice."—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 19.—(Supplementary provisions as to revocation and modification of planning permission.)

Mr. Westwood: I beg to move, in page 21, line 44, to leave out from beginning, to end of line 5, page 22, and to insert:
has otherwise sustained loss or damage which is directly attributable to the revocation or modification, that authority shall pay to that person compensation in respect of that expenditure, loss or damage:


Provided that unless either—

(a) any sum has been paid under Part V of this Act by way of development charge in respect of the development to which the permission relates; or
(b) no such charge is payable in respect of that development by virtue of any of the provisions of Part VI of this Act;
no compensation shall be payable under this Subsection in respect of loss or damage consisting of the depreciation in value of any interest in the land by virtue of the revocation or modification.
The purpose of this and the next Amendment is to meet the case put up by the Opposition in Committee. Clause 19 relates to compensation following recovation or modification of planning permission and compensation in connection with liability under contracts for abandoned works. The point was that many losses might follow the revocation or modification of planning permission which were not covered as others were. The Lord Advocate undertook to look at the Clause again, and as a result of that I move this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 22, line 13, leave out from "of," to "before," In line 14, and insert:
any other loss or damage (not being loss 01 damage consisting of the depreciation in value of an interest in land) arising out of anything done or omitted to be done.

In page 23, line 6, leave out "and, and insert "(5)."

In line 8, leave out "granted for development."—[Mr. Westwood."]

Mr. Westwood: I beg to move, in page 23, line 10, to leave out from "apply," to end of line 17, and to insert:
as if for references therein to the refusal of the permission or the imposition of conditions on the grant thereof there were substituted references to the revocation of permission or the modification thereof by the imposition of conditions, and Subsection (1) of that Section shall have effect as if for the words 'if the permission had been granted or had been granted unconditionally' there were substituted the words 'if the permission had not been revoked or had not been modified'.
This is purely drafting, designed to clarify the application of Clause 17 in cases where permission for development of land specified in Part II of the Fourth Schedule is revoked or modified.

Amendment agreed to

Further Amendments made:

In page 23, line 25, after "of," insert "the acquisition of."

In line 25, at end, insert:
as the case may be, any compensation pay able in respect of that interest."—[Mr Westwood.]

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 23, line 28, at the end, to insert:
(7) Any compensation payable under this Section in respect of loss or damage consisting of depreciation in value of an interest in land shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Fourth Schedule to this Act; and in calculating the amount of any such depreciation it shall be assumed that permission would be granted under this part of this Act for development of the land of any class specified in the Third Schedule to this Act.
Clause 19, as it has been amended tonight, provides that, where planning permission is revoked or modified under Clause 18, compensation may in certain, cases include compensation in respect of the resultant depreciation of the value of the land. This Amendment provides that such compensation is to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Fourth Schedule. Similar provision is already contained in Clauses 17 and 23.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 20.—(Enforcement of planning control.)

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I beg to move, in page 23, line 35, at the end, to insert:
within two years after such development is carried out.
There was considerable discussion upstairs as to whether there should not be some time limit after which it was not possible to stir up old questions, and I think the Government had some sympathy with it. As time is getting short, I will not repeat any of the arguments but will merely ask the right hon. Gentleman whether or not he has been able to do anything to meet us.

Mr. Westwood: We gave this further consideration but we cannot agree to accept this Amendment. The matter was fully debated in Committee, I have kept my promise to look at it, but, as a result, I am afraid I am unable to accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 24, line 42, after "that," to insert:

"(i) at any stage of the proceedings on such an appeal to him the sheriff may, and shall if so directed by the Court of Session, state a case for the opinion of the Court of Session on any question of law arising in connection with the appeal; and
(ii)."
I undertook in Committee to consider an Amendment along those lines.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 22.—(Powers relating to authorised users.)

Amendment made: In page 26, line 3b, leave out "twenty-one," and insert "twenty-eight."—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 23.—(Provisions supplementary) (to s.22)

Amendment made: In page 28, line 2, after "section," insert "and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4 of the Fourth Schedule to this Act."—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 24.—(Orders or preservation of trees and woodlands.)

Mr. Westwood: I beg to move, in page 30, line 28, at the end, to insert:
Provided that nothing in a tree preservation order shall render unlawful the felling or lopping of any tree if such felling or lopping is urgently necessary in the interests of safety, so long as notice in writing of the proposed operations is given to the local planning authority as soon as may be after the necessity for the operations arise.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in Committee undertook that we would give consideration to the inclusion of a provision in the Bill making it plain that the carrying of out of a tree preservation order would not include the lopping or felling of trees if this were necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 27.—(Control of advertisements.)

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 34, line 44, at the end, to insert:
Provided that no person having any pecuniary interest in the business of advertising shall be a member of such tribunal.
The purpose of this Amendment is to make certain that no one is appointed as a member of this tribunal, which is to consider advertising, who has any pecuniary interest in the business of advertising. I presume the right hon.

Gentleman will be perfectly agreeable to accept the Amendment.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: I beg to second the Amendment which. I think, is very reasonable, and is in accordance with many other instances of a similar nature.

Mr. Boothby: I must make a declaration of interest in this matter in so far as I am a director of a bill-posting company, but I assure the House that it makes no difference to my remuneration whether this Amendment is carried or not. If this Amendment is carried, other interested parties in the advertising business should also be excluded; for example, various amenity organisations, local authorities themselves, and representatives of local authorities. It is only fair, if we are to exclude the advertisers themselves, that we should also exclude the other side, so that no interested party should be a member of the tribunal. Nevertheless, with all due deference to my leaders, I do not think this Amendment is necessary, because the Secretary of State would not appoint any person who had a pecuniary interest.

Mr. McAllister: 1 wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), and it is necessary for me to declare my interest as a director of an advertising company. I think those who have put down the Amendment have rather misjudged the advertising profession. The Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Town and Country Planning will agree that the advertising profession have given the utmost cooperation in the preparation of the Clauses of the Bill and the part of the Bill designed to restrict unseemly and undignified advertising.

The Lord Advocate: I do not think it is really necessary to make this Amendment. The phrase "independent tribunal" is itself a sufficient guide and, moreover, the words "pecuniary interest" are a little vague, and might lead to considerable difficulty in defining what a pecuniary interest is

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Westwood: I beg to move, in page 35, line 36, at the end, to insert:
(6) Nothing in this section or in any regulations made thereunder shall be construed as


authorising the restriction or regulation of the display of any advertisement by reason only of the subject matter or wording thereof.
This Amendment is for the purpose of meeting an undertaking given by the Joint Under-Secretary in Committee that we would include in the Bill a provision making it clear that there should be no censorship over the contents of advertisements.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 29.—(Powers relating to ruinous, or dilapidated buildings, waste land. etc.)

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Westwood: I beg to move, in page 36, line 38, to leave out "waste,? and to insert "derelict, waste, neglected."
This Amendment is intended to give effect to the point which was raised in Committee that the kind of land in relation to which a local authority may take action under Clause 29 should be more narrowly defined. That is what the Amendment does, in order to fulfil the undertaking which we gave.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: We must thank the right hon. Gentleman for going some little way, but we are still left with the vague phraseology "derelict, waste, neglected or other land …"It may deal with derelict or waste land, but I am not sure that "neglected or other land" does not remain subject to the objections we stated previously. I am afraid we shall still be in a little difficulty, but I do not want to press the matter. As the Secretary of State has gone some distance, perhaps he will look at the matter again before the Bill reaches another place. It is a matter of some importance, which I think could be clarified a little more with advantage to everyone.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 31.— [Application to land regulated by special Acts, etc.]

Mr. Westwood: I beg to move, in page 38 line 37, to leave out Clause 31.
This Amendment has to be read together with the new Clause which was moved as a substitute to Clause 31.

Amendment agreed to

CLAUSE 33.—(Compulsory acquisition by Ministers, local authorities and statutory undertakers.)

Mr. Westwood: I beg to move, in page 39, line 12, to leave out from "acquisi-

tion," to the second "any" in line 13, and to insert "by."
This Amendment is consequential upon others that have already been accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendments made.

CLAUSE 34.—(Compulsory acquisition by local planning authorities of land for development.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 40, line 23, to leave out from "acquisition," to "he," in line 36, and to insert:
by the appropriate local authority, then it the Secretary of State is satisfied—

(a) in the case of land comprised in an area denned by the plan as an area of comprehensive development, that the land is required in order to secure the development or redevelopment of the said area or that it is expedient in the public interest that the land should be held together with land so required;
(b) in any other case, that it is necessary that the land should be acquired under this Section for the purpose of securing Us use in the manner proposed by the plan."
This Amendment is intended to make clear that once an area has been defined by the development plan as an area of comprehensive development, the Secretary of State may authorise the compulsory purchase of any land within that area if he is satisfied, first, that the land is required to secure the development or redevelopment; or, secondly, that it is expedient in the public interest that the land should be held along with lands so required, for example, isolated plots in the area on which no actual development is proposed. In other cases the Secretary of State has to be satisfied that the acquisition of land is necessary in accordance with the development plan.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Westwood: I beg to move, in page 41, line 6, after "fit," to insert:
after consultation with the local planning authorities concerned.
Clause 34 (3), as it stands, enables the Secretary of State to authorise the compulsory purchase of land by other than the local planning authority in whose district the land compulsorily acquired is situated. The Amendment is to implement a promise given by the Joint Under-Secretary of State in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 37.—(Power to acquire buildings of special architectural or historic interest.)

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I beg to move, in page 43, line 26, at the end to insert:
and where any such building is acquired under this Subsection the local planning authority shall not execute, or cause or permit to be executed, any works for the demolition of the building or for its alteration or extension which would substantially affect its character.
The purpose of this Amendment can be briefly stated. We gave some attention to this matter in Committee and the Joint Under-Secretary said he would consider it. It is in order to elicit from him the result of his deliberations that we have put down the Amendment. Subsection (4) deals with cases of buildings which have been taken over by local authorities but which are not the subject of building preservation orders. If they were the subject of such orders, these ancient and beautiful buildings would have to be preserved, but since they are not the subject of orders we think it is important that the local authority should be under some compulsion to maintain them in good order.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: I beg to second the Amendment.
I understand that in another place a solution has been found to this matter. That solution might be acceptable to the Government and also to hon. Members on this side of the House.

The Lord Advocate: We have looked at this carefully and we think the present words should stand. The Amendment would mean that a local planning authority would have to preserve buildings for all time and would never be able to alter them even though it might be necessary in the interest of public health. In point of fact, it would impose on a local planning authority even more onerous conditions than exist in the case of a building in respect of which a building preservation order had been made.

Amendment negatived.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 43, line 26, at the end, to insert:
(5) An authorisation may be given under this section notwithstanding that a clearance order or a demolition order has been made under Section sixteen of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930.

As hon. Members no doubt realise, this Clause gives to local authorities the power to acquire by agreement land which contains any building in respect of which a building preservation order is in force. This Amendment carries the matter a little further. It empowers the local authority to acquire buildings which may be in the area of a clearance or demolition order, but which are of historical interest and in respect of which no building preservation order is in force. It is of value that we should keep as many of these old buildings as we can.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Lord Advocate: The powers given by this Clause can be used only when a building preservation order is already in force. In my view, the Amendment would not alter that position. It is really most improbable that a local planning authority would ever make a building preservation order in respect of a building upon which a demolition order had already been made. There is no method under the existing law, so far as I can see, under which the demolition order, once made, can be rescinded. It is equally unlikely that a local authority would make a demolition order for a building in respect of which a preservation order had been made. I can see what hon. Members opposite want here, but I still think they need have no real anxiety but that the matter may be left to us.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I do not want to press the matter, but it is not at all difficult, to my mind, to think of cases where a building, as a shell, ought to be preserved historically as a monument, but the inside of which is such that a demolition order is required. It may very well be that we may get the demolition order first when we ought to have had a preservation order, and if, as the Lord Advocate tells us, there is no way of rescinding the demolition order, the position is even worse than we had anticipated. I should have thought that he would take this opportunity of putting into the Bill some method of undoing a demolition order so as to preserve the outside of a building which might very easily be the subject of a demolition order if one took account only of the inside. I hope the Lord Advocate will look at this matter again, as mistakes are bound to happen


sometimes, and it seems to me that we may get to the point where a demolition order has been made in respect of something which ought to be preserved, and that there is no way out of that position. This point having been raised, the Government should find a way out, and, as the Bill is the proper place for providing that way out, we think it ought to be inserted before this Bill becomes law. I hope he will be able to do this, because it is in everybody's interest that it should be done.

Mr. McKie: I very much hope that the Lord Advocate will take to heart what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, because Scotland is very rich in buildings of historical interest, and I share the apprehensions which have been expressed, as representing a constituency which is particularly rich in historical monuments. Although they have been fairly amply safeguarded by the Preservation of Ancient Monuments Act, we all know what has happened in the past, in all the countries of Europe, where demolition has taken place for the purely utilitarian purposes which my right hon. and learned Friend envisaged. I hope the Lord Advocate will do something about it, because, as a true lover of Scotland, I should expect him to share our concern in this matter. In putting forward this Amendment, we desire only to prevent the undue spoliation of buildings of historical value in Scotland, and I therefore ask the Lord Advocate seriously to reconsider the matter

The Lord Advocate: I would suggest that the circumstances which have been suggested occur very seldom, but we will certainly look at the matter again and see what we can do.

Mr. Scollan: I am sorry the Lord Advocate said he would look into this matter again, because I do not think it requires reconsideration. If there is any building of historical interest within the boundary of the local planing authority, nobody can visualise that body acting in a manner likely to bring about the destruction of that building. In cases where there are very old buildings of historical interest, the local authority, in consultation with the Secretary of State, will decide that the building is a monument worthy of preservation. If the local authority does

not agree, I do not see why the Bill should compel them to preserve something, if they do not wish to do so.

Sir W. Darling: I have listened to what the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) has said, and I should like to refer to an ancient building known as Gladstone's Land in the City of Edinburgh. It was designated by the local authority for demolition to make way for the construction of some of the modern buildings which the hon. Member for West Renfrew has in mind. This decision by the local authority caused a public outcry, and if my memory is right, I think I am right in saying that the Ancient Monuments Commission undertook to find half the money if the public would find the other half. As a result, this ancient and characteristic building which is known as Gladstone's Land still exists in the City of Edinburgh, and is still owned and is occupied by the Saltoun Society, one of those public-spirited cultural societies which have done so much for Scotland. I am saying this to refresh the memory of the Lord Advocate. It is not an unimportant matter that a great many such buildings will be rather ruthlessly demolished with a great loss to the community if an Amendment of this sort does not get the support of the Lord Advocate. I am sure the Lord Advocate would be the last man in the world to want these characteristic buildings demolished and replaced by something of less historical value.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 39.—(Acquisition of land by Central Land Board.)

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Westwood: I beg to move, in page 44, line 37, after "them," to insert:
by way of sale, feu or lease.
This Amendment implements an undertaking which has been given that we would move an Amendment on Report that the Central Land Board should dispose of land in Scotland by sale, feu or lease. Hon. Members who have followed the progress of this Bill will recall the undertaking, and I do not think that the addition calls for any further explanation.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 44.—(Power to stop up and divert highways, etc.)

Mr. Westwood: I beg to move, in page 50, line 11, after "permission," to insert:
or to be carried out by a government department.
This Clause provides that the Minister of Transport, if he is of opinion that development is necessary, may make an order stopping up or diverting any highway. This Amendment enables my right hon. Friend to make an order enabling development to be carried out by a Government department.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I wonder whether, for the purposes of record, the Secretary of State can make a statement on the position of planning authorities where Government Departments carry out development? I understand that there are arrangements under which no Government Department can carry out development without reference to the Scottish Office, and I am not sure if the planning authorities are to have an opportunity of making representations before other Departments step in and carry out development. I should like to know what the rule is to be in future. Will there be an opportunity for planning authorities to object before other Departments come in and commence operations?

Mr. Westwood: I can speak again only with the permission of the House, but I would like to say that it is my intention that there shall be the closest consultation between Government Departments and my own Department and the local authorities and planning authorities. In Committee we discussed a case in which there was a little slip-up, but I think that I sent a letter to my hon. Friend explaining the whole position and pointing out that I had already given instructions to see that, as far as possible, there would be no slip-up in future in dealing with this. It is my intention that there shall be the closest consultation between my Department and local authorities before anything is done, if that is at all possible.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: The incident which the Secretary of State for Scotland has quoted is by no means an isolated incident, and consultation, in spite of his assurance is, in fact, still not taking place. May I cite to him an in-

stance which has taken place quite recently, on 3rd July, in which a substantial building has been erected in the grounds of the coastguard station at Heswall, without the knowledge of the local authority, by His Majesty's Office of Works? That building, in the view of the local authority, will constitute a great danger in view of the fact that it completely blinds a dangerous corner. That is perhaps a minor incident, but it shows that the consultation on which the Secretary of State is relying, and which we consider to be very important, is in fact still not taking place. I would like to draw his attention to this, and to ask that we may have some assurance that, in fact, local authorities will be consulted and that he will see that machinery exists for consultation before Government Departments proceed in the way I have indicated.

Mr. Buchanan: May I say one word on the incident referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison)? The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir B. Neven-Spence) has already raised this issue; so much so that I frankly confess that my officials have been quite perturbed. They have again spoken to me about the matter, and have asked me to say that they will go into the matter with the hon. Member whose business it is. Speaking broadly, and without committing myself in any way, I must say that if the facts are true, it is not a thing which the Secretary of State would welcome. He does give an assurance that he intends to see that the provision is carried out properly and thoroughly, and that he will make what representations are necessary to see that an incident of this kind, if the facts are correct, is not repeated.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page 51, line 19, at the end, to insert:
(5) Regulations made under this Act by the Minister of Transport may provide for securing that any proceedings required to be taken for the purposes of the acquisition of land under Subsection (3) of this Section may be taken concurrently with any proceedings required to be taken for the purposes of the order under this Section.
The object of this Amendment is to enable regulations to be made by the Minister of Transport authorising pro-


ceedings for the compulsory acquisition of land under Clause 44 to be taken at the same time as proceedings connected with the making of an order stopping up highways under this Clause. A similar provision enabling proceedings for the acquisition of land to be taken concurrently with consideration of the development plans is also contained in Clause 41 (6) of this Bill.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: This seems to me to be a most odd proceeding. You are to take at the same time proceedings to determine whether an order shall be made and proceedings to acquire land to carry out the order. How can you determine whether land will be required until you have determined wether the order is to be made? I cannot see how it is possible to conduct these operations concurrently, and the same point arises in regard to a subsequent Amendment which we will come to later. I cannot see how it is possible to begin operations for acquisition of land without stultifying the whole procedings in connection with the making of the order. Of course, if you are going to adopt the attitude that anybody who objects to the making of an order is just "blowing off steam", and that naturally the Minister will ride roughshod over everybody, whatever a person may say, then I can see there can be concurrent proceedings, but you cannot have concurrent proceedings without admitting that the whole proceedings for the making of the order are just a farce. Is he really saying that? If he is not, I cannot see how the question can come forward.

Mr. Buchanan: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is stressing this too much. It is not for that purpose, but merely to enable the Minister of Transport to make a report expeditiously.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 46.—(Compensator for compulsory acquisition after appointed day.)

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page 52, line 35, to leave out from "development," to the end of line 39.
This Amendment should be read with the Amendment in page 53, line 4. The effect of the Amendment is to provide that in assessing compensation on compulsory acquisition after the appointed day in cases where planning permission has been

granted before the date of the notice to treat for development other than development under any of the classes specified in the Third Schedule to this Bill, no regard is to be had to any increase in the value of the land which is attributable to planning permission. Clause 46, as it stands, is defective in that it ignores the fact that the value of the land will be increased as a result of the payment of a development charge or as a result of exemption from payment of the development charge under Part IV of this Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 53, line 4, at end, insert:
(3) Where, at any time before the date of the notice to treat, planning permission has been granted for any development of the land, other than development of any class specified in the Third Schedule to this Act, or is deemed to have been so granted, then unless either—

(a) any sum has been paid under Part V of this Act by way of development charge in respect of that development; or
(b) no such charge is payable in respect of that development by virtue of any of the provisions of Part VI of this Act;
the value of the interest to which the notice to treat relates shall be calculated as if that permission had not been granted."—[Mr. Buchanan.]

Mr. Westwood: I beg to move, in page 53, line 16, at the end, to insert:
(4) Where the interest is acquired in pursuance of a purchase notice served under the said Section sixteen, and directions have been given under paragraph (b) of Subsection (2) of that Section requiring that planning permission shall be granted for any development of other land to which the purchase notice relates, no account shall be taken for the purposes of this section of any increase or diminution in the value of the said interest which is attributable to the direction or to any permission granted in pursuance thereof.
Under Clause 16 (2, b) the Secretary of State may confirm a purchase notice under that Clause for part only of the land to which the notice relates, and he may direct that planning permission shall be granted for development of the remaining part. The object of the Amendment which I am moving is to ensure that, in assessing the compensation which is to be paid by the local planning authority on the acquisition of that part of the land for which the purchase notice was confirmed, no account is taken of any increase or diminution of the value of that part which may result from the direction, or any permission for the development of


the other part which may be given in accordance with the direction.

Amendment agreed to.

10.45 P.m.

CLAUSE 48—(Compensation jot compulsory acquisition of land attracting converted value payments.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 55, line 20, after "under," to insert:
paragraph (b) of Subsection (2) of.
This is a drafting Amendment. If any hon. Members want an explanation, I will, of course, give it.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 50.—(Compensation for compulsory acquisition after passing of this Act and before the appointed day.)

Mr. Westwood: I beg to move, in page 58, line 18, to leave out the first "on" and to insert 'immediately before.'
This Amendment and the following two Amendments on the Order Paper are for the purpose of correcting a minor slip in Clause 50 (2). The value of the land compulsorily acquired should be ascertained not to 7th January, 1947, but to the period immediately before that date, and the Amendment I am moving secures that.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: May I ask for information on this. How far back does "immediately" go? I may be asking a very stupid question, but I do not know what it means, and I am quite sure that there are many people both inside and outside the House who do not know.

The Lord Advocate: It will be for the courts to decide what is the precise meaning of a reasonable time. If there is any real dispute, which I can hardly believe would be likely, the courts would have to decide what in particular circumstances would properly be regarded as being ?immediately before."

Mr. C. Williams: This is a real tragedy. We are at this time of night trying to get a simple answer to a simple question, and we are told that what the courts decide, is reasonable. Surely, the House is capable of deciding a matter of that sort without always having to go to the courts. I have no great feeling on this matter, but it is hard for the House if we cannot get a better legal definition than that which we have just been given. We have only one Scottish Law Officer, and it is a great pity he cannot help the House more than he is doing.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendments made.

CLAUSE 52.—(Payments for depreciation of land values.)

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I beg to move, in page 60, line 9, to leave out from "interests" to "of," in line 10.
In this Clause we now pass to Part IV of the Bill, which deals with payments in respect of depreciation, and the particular Subsection with which we are concerned on page 60 is to the effect that the Treasury shall make a scheme providing for the distribution between the interests, or such of them as may be prescribed by the scheme, of the sum apportioned to land in Scotland, that is, a portion of the global sum. Now, the phraseology of this Subsection and the words which we seek to leave out suggest that there may be interests which are found, after investigation, to have a substantial bearing, but which nevertheless are to receive no part of the global sum—in other words, are to be entirely confiscated.
I do not know whether this got in by some oversight, or whether it is really the Government's intention that some of these interests shall simply be confiscated without any compensation at all, because undoubtedly the Clause, as it stands, entitles the Treasury to make a scheme under which certain classes of interests are simply to disappear without compensation. I know that there has been controversy among hon. Members opposite as to whether any compensation should be paid for interests that are confiscated by the State, but we had understood that for the time being that controversy had been resolved in favour of some compensation. It would be inadequate in many


cases, but at least the principle of compensation has hitherto been recognised. I know that there has been an attempt in this connection to say that the £300 million is not compensation, but is something to meet hardship, but it is a very serious criticism of the Government's actions, if they are going to admit that they have created hardship to the tune of £300 million.
I can understand the Government operating a large-sized scheme of nationalisation and saying that the cost to the country will be £300 million or even £3,000 million, for what they get, but to say that nobody is entitled to a penny, although they agree they are creating hardship to the tune of £300 million by what they do, is a pretty good criticism of their actions and is creating hardship without any legal right at all. Is it supposed that there is no hardship involved in taking away certain rights without compensation? Why none at all? Is this a means test? Is it the idea that the poor man suffers hardship, but that if a man is above a certain level he does not suffer any hardship, and is it the proposal that everybody, in claiming compensation, must declare the whole of his assets so that the Government may determine on a means test whether or not he is to suffer hardship?
Let the people of the country understand if that is what is proposed. It will be difficult for some hon. Gentlemen opposite to propose a means test. It that is so, let us understand what it is, and that the proposal is that everyone who makes a claim under the Bill shall undergo a means test and that if they have means over a certain amount, they are not deemed to suffer any hardship. No doubt as the means fall so does the hardship rise—or are there some other circumstances to be taken into account? I do not know. Let us understand what we are doing, and let us be told the basis on which this strange compensation is to take place. I do not think the country as a whole realises that the rights of a number of people are to be consficated without compensation. Nor do they realise that there is to be a sliding scale of compensation which apparently is to be envisaged, if I interpret the right hon. Gentleman's nod aright. I think it is time the country did understand just

what is happening. I need hardly say that we on this side of the House take the view, as did the Uthwatt Committee, that the rights being taken away here are legal rights which ought to be compensated.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I am sure he has read the Uthwatt Committee's report sufficiently well to realise that it said nothing of the kind. The Committee made it perfectly clear that in common law they have no rights at all.

Mr. Reid: They made it plain that where you are sterilising land, when you are telling someone he must not use land in a certain way, there is no room for compensation at common law; but they did not say that when you are taking valuable rights which you, the taker, propose to sell, there is no right of compensation. They never said that. That is what the Bill is taking. The Bill is taking from the landowner valuable rights and vesting them in the Central Land Board and proposing that the Board shall sell them for the benefit of the Government. Therefore, you are taking property from people which you are proposing to sell for a considerable amount, and yet you are saying that that property is not to be compensated. The Uthwatt Committee never suggested that was either legal or moral, and I suggest that it is neither legal nor moral.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the country has a right to know. To that we do not demur. The country has a right to know, and in Committee when it was discussed, we made no attempt to hide the facts. On Second Reading, when the matter was raised, it was fully discussed. The same thing applied on the English Bill, when the principle was fully debated at every stage. So far as we are concerned, we admit the right of the country to know, and indeed, we are prepared and anxious for the country to know the facts. The nation is taking over development values.
It is said by some Members on this side—and I do not deny it—that we are rather mild in only taking over development value. They say we ought to take over the land itself, but being a very moderate Government—[Interruption]—


yes, a very moderate Government, considered on Socialist standards, particularly following a war in which people fought for land—we do not take an extreme view. We take the moderate view that the value of the land should be taken by the community because that value was created by the community. The protagonists on both Front Benches, leaving out my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State all represent Divisions on the banks of the Clyde. Where would the value of the land on Clydeside be without the industry, capacity and work of the shipbuilding workers? The value of the land was not created by the particular owners at the time, but by the capacity and intelligence of the common people.
The money payment of £300 million which we propose is regarded by some Members on this side as being value, if we are taking over the land. The Government have come to the conclusion that it is absolutely essential that the development of land should belong to the nation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government have looked on broad lines at what the nation can justly afford and have decided on the sum of £300 million. We propose to allocate this sum to those who own development values so that if there is any hardship or suffering, it will be modified and the taking-over will bear less hardly on those who can afford it least. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman says there is some kind of means test, I say frankly, "Yes, there is." I do not deny it. This is an ex gratia payment which is not derived out of any real right. It is a community right But recognising that hardship may be caused, this Government, with a generosity and kindness well becoming to it, have granted the owners of development values this payment. On a broad view, I think it is a very generous payment and one which the hon. Gentlemen opposite, instead of opposing, should welcome, coming from this Government.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The honeyed words which have come from the Joint Under-Secretary will deceive nobody. Now that the other side of the House have openly admitted that they approve of the means test, which will come somewhat of a surprise to many of their supporters, we have come to the stage where it is perfectly obvious that the Socialist Government are floundering worse than they

did before. The hon. Gentleman suggests that perhaps many of his friends would prefer that they should take over land completely. He also knows that they would be quite incompetent to run the land if they did take it over.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to know that that has nothing to do with the Amendment under discussion.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: With very great respect, I was replying to the hon. Gentleman who has already spoken, and I did not think that he was out of Order at the time.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is not for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to decide whether a Member is out of Order or not. That is a matter for the Chair

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: That is why I was apologising for making the mistake. I was not doubting your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I was apologising for making a mistake. My right hon. and learned Friend put the case very clearly when he showed that there was discrimination in compensating people. To give compensation where the Government think there is an advantage is preposterous to ordinary thinking people with an idea of justice, and it makes a lamentable record for the Government, certainly much worse than it was before. When one listens to the Government spokesmen, who pose as pioneers of justice, saying that justice will only be done in certain cases ?if we like the people," I think it is a most disgraceful state of affairs. To say that justice shall be done in certain cases or not, which is worse because the Government might have to do it in a few more cases, is a travesty of everything connected with fair Government in this country, and I cannot help thinking that this is the most regrettable thing to which we have listened so far.

Sir W. Darling: I should like to clarify my own mind in this matter. If I understood the contention of the Government, it is that the sum of £300 million was provided for making payment in respect of interest in land in Scotland, England and Wales. Having made this provision quite clearly under Clause 3, it seems as if an effort is to be made to whittle down that sum and to find some excuse or justification for not paying it.

Mr. Buchanan: No. I wish the hon. Gentleman would not provoke me. There is no whittling down of the £300 million by a penny. It will remain unaltered.

Sir W. Darling: The allocation of the £300 million will unquestionably be whittled down, if the claim to eliminate certain classes because they are ineligible for any advantage is carried. The scheme, to which the Treasury agreed, provided for distribution as between those interests in development values in land or—and this is where the whittling down can take place—such of them as may be prescribed by the scheme. The Joint Under-Secretary said with heat and eloquence that this was not a just scheme, but he certainly claimed for it that it was one of generosity and kindness. I venture to say that it would be more commendable to those concerned—and, after all, we are dealing with persons who are feeling their rights, no matter what the feelings of the Government may be—if he had added justice to that. Kindness and generosity are suitable relations, especially between one person and another, but one looks for something more elevating, something above emotion, in a case such as this. I suggest that justice would be the proper way of deciding between those various interests on the one hand
or such as them as may be prescribed by the scheme.'
That prescription, during the French Revolution, was the prelude to execution; I feel the prescription in this Clause is the prelude to something nearly like it. I put it to the Secretary of State and his colleagues that the use of his provision, if it is retained, will mean less of that global sum for some people in Scotland. I am sure the Government agree that we want to make the distribution of this global sum fair to all parties who feel they are deserving of compensation in these circumstances. I think the elimination of

these words would make the matter less kind, less generous, but certainly, in my opinion, more just.

Mr. N. Macpherson: A suggestion has already been made from all quarters of this House that there is no kind of right to compensation or hardship payment of any kind for the loss of unrestricted or development rights. That is the claim that has been made. The Uthwatt Report was referred to, and it is true that there is no common law right arising out of the loss of these rights. What the Uthwatt Report says is quite clear. It says:
But the point may be reached when restriction imposes an expenditure beyond obligation. At this stage restriction becomes equivalent to the expropriation of proprietary right or interest, and, therefore, it will be claimed should carry a right to compensation as such.
That is the point. There is no doubt at all that the rights now being taken away are, in fact, far beyond the rights merely of not creating a nuisance between neighbours. The whole right of the use of property is being taken away, except the existing use. In exchange for that, it is said that those losing rights have no right in turn to receive any compensation. That is not the opinion of the Uthwatt Report. The second contention of those on this side of the House is that if these rights are being taken away, compensation should be even, in the same way, indeed, as those who are losing rights in industries which are being nationalised are compensated evenly. We deny to Members on the other side, or any body of men, the right to pick and choose whom they should compensate. The compensation must be done evenly, fairly, and with justice.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 146; Noes, 47.

Division No. 303]
AYES.
[11.58 p.m


Adams, Richard (Batham)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Corlett, Dr. J.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith,
South) Braddock, T (Mitcham)
Crawley, A.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Brock, D (Halifax)
Crossman, R H S


Attewell, H. C.
Bruce, Maj. D W T
Daines, P.


Awbery, S. S.
Buchanan, G
Davies, Edward (Burslem)


Baird, J.
Burden, T. W
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Balfour, A
Burke, W. A.
Deer, G.


Barton, C.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Diamond, J.


Bechervaise, A. E
Champion, A. J.
Driberg, T. E. N.


Blackburn, A. R
Cocks, F. S.
Dumpleton, C. W


Blenkinsop, A
Collindridge, F.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J C.


Blyton, W R
Collins, V. J.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)


Bowden Flg.-Offr. R. W.
Colman, Miss G. M.
Evans, John (Ogmore)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Corbet, Mrs F. K (Camb'well, N.W.)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)




Ewart, R.
Mitchison, G R
Snow, Capt. J. W


Fairhurst, F
Monslow, W.
Sorensen, R W


Farthing, W. J.
Moody, A. S.
Sparks, J. A


Field, Captain W. J.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Steele, T


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Moyle, A.
Stewart Michael, (Fulham E.)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Nicholls, H R. (Stratford)
Stubbs, A E.


Ganley, Mrs. C S
Noel-Baker, Capt F. E. (Brentford)
Sylvester, G. O


Gilzean, A.
O'Brien, T.
Symonds, A. L.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Orbach, M.
Taylor, H. B (Mansfield)


Gordon-Walker, P. C
Palmer, A. M. F
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Greenwood, A W J (Heywood)
Pargiter, G A
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Grey, C. F.
Parker, J.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Guy, W. H.
Paton, J (Norwich)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hale, Leslie
Pearson, A.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E)


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Peart, Thomas F.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Popplewell, E.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Honderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Usborne, Henry


Herbison, Miss M
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Vernon, Mai W.


Holman, P.
Prill, D. N.
Walkden, E


House, G
Proctor, W. T
Wells, W. T. (Warsall)


Hoy, J.
Randall, H. E
Westwood, Rt. Hon J


Hubbard,
Ranger, J
White, H. (Derbyshire N.E.)


Jeger, Dr. S. W (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Rees-Williams, D. K
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Reid, T (Swindon)
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Wilkins, W. A.


Keenan, W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Kenyon, C.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Williams, J. (Kelvingrove)


Kirby, B V
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Williams, W. R (Heston)


Lavers, S.
Royle, C.
Willis E


Leonard, W
Scollan, T
Wills, Mrs E A


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Segal, Dr. S
Yates, V F


Mack, J. D.
Shackleton, E. A. A
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Manning, Mrs L (Epping)
Sharp, Granville



Mathers, G.
Shurmer, P
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mellish, R. J
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Mr. Simmons and Mr. Hannan.


Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R
Skeffington, A. M.





NOES.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Prescott, Stanley


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hope, Lord J.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Bossom, A. C.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T
Hutchison, Col. J. R (Glasgow, C.)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S C. (Hillhead)


Clarke, Col R. S.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr Rolano


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Ropner, Col. L.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
C. Macdonald, Sir P. (I of Wight)
Studholme, H. G.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Sutcliffe, H.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon Harold (Bromley)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Darling Sir W. Y
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J


Drewe, C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Marsden, Capt. A.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D P M
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)



Gage, C
Mellor, Sir J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Galbraith, Cmdr T D
Neven-Spence, Sir B
Commander Agnew and


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Osborne. C
Lieut.-Colonel Thorp.

CLAUSE 53.—(Additional payments in respect of certain war-damaged land.)

Mr. Westwood: I beg to move, in page 61, line 20 to leave out from "that," to the end of line 25, and to insert:
by reason of the prospects of development other than the making good of the war damage, the value of the hereditament in the state in which it was immediately after the occurrence of the damage is higher, and the amount of the value payment is accordingly lower, than it would be apart from the prospect of such development.
Clause 53 provides for the making of payments, additional to those payable under the Treasury scheme in Clause 52, in the case of war-damaged land in respect of which a value payment

falls to be made under the War Damage Act, 1943. In calculating the value payment, account is taken of the redevelopment value of the site, and the higher the redevelopment value, naturally the lower the value payment. Under the Bill, however, the owner will no longer be allowed to enjoy the development value, and the purpose of the Clause is to set this right and to entitle the owner in such cases to a rectifying payment outside the £300 million which we have been discussing. The object of the Amendment is to express more clearly what is intended. The wording of the Clause as it stands gives rise to some doubt.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 54.—(Establishment of claims for payments.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 62, line 32, to leave out from the second "the," to the end of line 34, and to insert:
settlement of any dispute arising in relation to such determinations by an arbiter appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, or by a special tribunal constituted in acordance with the regulations.
This Amendment is to meet a point of complaint by the Opposition in Committee. It was argued that regulations under Clause 54 should provide in terms for disputes as to the amount of the development value to be determined by arbitration under the 1919 Act. We have here gone some distance to meet the Opposition. The Amendment provides for arbitration under the 1919 Act or by special tribunal constituted under the regulations.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 62, line 37, after "determination," to insert:
and the settlement of any such dispute."—[Mr. Westwood.]

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I beg to move, in page 62, line 41, to leave out paragraph (c).
This is for the purpose of trying to clear up a difficulty which arises under this paragraph, which provides:
for rendering the right to a payment under this part of this Act conditional upon compliance with the provisions of the regulations with respect to the making of claims.
I do not think that the Government mean that if one does not use the right form, or does not sign on the right dotted line, one will not get one's money. But that is what this paragraph means. Surely it is not right to say that because one does not follow the right procedure one will be deprived of one's compensation? I hope the Secretary of State will drop this or give an absolute assurance that there will be no use of this power in the way I suggest when it comes to the making of regulations.

The Lord Advocate: I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the regulations which may be made will not be such as to cause the result he has mentioned. But we must have some kind of power, and what we have in mind is

regulations to deal with the matter of submission of proof of title and that kind of thing. This paragraph is for the purpose of having a reserve power for the sort of things which are the substrata of a claim.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I beg to move, in page 63, line 14, to leave out "different," and to insert "adjacent or contiguous."
This is a matter of rather more substance. The provision here appears to be that although a landowner has a number of parcels of land scattered all over Scotland he may be required to bring them all into the same claim. There seems to be no point in that, but this is what is allowed. This is what the Central Land Board is permitted to do. If one has contiguous parcels of land it is all right. I agree that a man should not get more compensation by dividing an estate into bits, but nor should the Government avoid the payment of proper compensation by taking one piece of land in Berwickshire and another in Sutherland and saying: "Here is a big bit of land, and landowners are very wicked people and they shall not get paid." Can the Secretary of State give some practical reason why distant bits of land should be put into the one claim? Either the right hon. Gentleman means that, or he should drop this altogether.

The Lord Advocate: It is not intended to aggregate parcels of land separated by great distances in the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests. The difficulty is in really finding a satisfactory word for dealing with this. The term "adjacent or contiguous" will not do because that means just bordering on each other. We have looked into this with the object of finding some kind of formula which would prevent the sort of case which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned. But it is difficult to get any satisfactory formula, and it appeared to be better to leave it to the good sense of the landlords, with the assurance that we will not attempt to aggregate claims in respect of widely separated parcels of land.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Does this mean that the Central Land Board is going to deal with these matters without any definition?


Surely it would be as easy for the Lord Advocate to find suitable words as it will be for the Central Land Board. The Lord Advocate's answer surely means that it will not be possible to tell people in advance whether to aggregate their claims or not and that they will have to make special inquiry in each case separately. Surely the Lord Advocate cannot mean that. It cannot be impossible to find words to tell people what the position is. Is the Central Land Board a greater master of the English language than the Lord Advocate so that where he has failed it will succeed?

The Lord Advocate: What the Central Land Board will do is to deal with each case on its merits.

Sir W. Darling: The difficulty appears to be that the Lord Advocate cannot find suitable words. He has admitted the desirability of doing so, and the absurdity of collecting different parcels of land and aggregating them for one compensation. He admits that this would be a preposterous and difficult situation. He will not have the words "adjacent" or "contiguous." Would "in proximity" do? It would in my view do justice to the Clause. "In the neighbourhood of one another"—are these suitable? I suggested, in Committee, that the words, "parcels of land," which are in the Clause will lead to the possibility of considerable injustice. There are many counties in Scotland, and I might have a parcel of land in each. Under this Clause they could be aggregated as the Central Land Board may direct. But "contiguity" would give some justice and reasonableness.
The suggestion contained In the Clause will create a position of absurdity. It is at known fact that there are landlords of property in different counties of Scotland. There are landlords of land in the North of Scotland and the South, in the East and the West. I do suggest that the Central Land Board should have some direction or indication how it should aggregate these parcels of land. The words "in different parcels of land" do not seem to give such direction. It seems surprising that the Lord Advocate is unable to give a different interpretation from that which is given in the Clause. I suggest that with the range of resources and the information at his disposal he can

put before the House something which would meet its views on this subject.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 55.—(Ascertainment of development values of land.)

Mr. Westwood: I beg to move, in page 64, line 21, to leave out "on," and insert "immediately before."
This and the next Amendment are to correct a minor slip. The same slip appeared earlier in the Bill, but we corrected it.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendment made.

CLAUSE 64.—(Determination of development charge by Central Land Board.)

Mr. Westwood: I beg to move, in page 71, line 5, to leave out "on application being," and to insert:
as soon as may be after an application has been.
In this Amendment we have tried to meet a suggestion made in Committee that words should be imported into Clause 64 which would make it plain that the Central Land Board must deal with applications for the fixing of development charge as quickly as possible. That is the purpose of this Amendment

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 67.—(Variation of determinations and repayment of development charges in certain cases.)

Mr. Westwood: I beg to move, in page 74, line 25, to leave out Subsections (2) to (5) and to insert:
(2) Where, after the amount of the development charge has been determined under this Part of this Act in respect of any operations or in respect of any use of land, and before the amount so determined has been fully discharged—

(a) planning permission for the carrying out of those operations or for the institution or continuance of that use is revoked by an Order made under section eighteen of this Act; or
(b)an order is made under section twenty-two of this Act requiring the removal of any buildings or works erected or constructed in carrying out those operations, or requiring the discontinuance of that use; or
(c) the whole of the land to which the determination relates is compulsorily acquired under this or any other Act,
the determination, and any agreements or charges made or given in respect thereof, shall


thereupon cease to have effect but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder, and the Board shall on application being made to them discharge or release any agreements or securities given in respect thereof.
(3) Where, after the amount of the development charge has been determined as aforesaid, and before the amount so determined has been fully discharged—

(a) planning permission for the carrying out of the operations, or for the institution or continuance of the use, to which the determination relates, is modified by an order made under the said section eighteen; or
(b) an order is made under the said section tweny-two requiring the alteration of any buildings or works erected or constructed in the carrying out of those operations, or imposing conditions on the continuance of that use; or
(c) any part of the land to which the determination relates is compulsorily acquired under this or any other Act,
the Board shall, on application made to them in accordance with regulations under this Act, vary the determination and amend, discharge, modify or release any agreements or securities made or given in respect thereof, so far as may be just in consequence of the modification, order or purchase, as the case may be.
(4) Where compensation is payable under Part II of this Act in consequence of any such order as mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (2) or subsection (3) of this section, then, in calculating for the purposes of the compensation any depreciation in the value of the land to which the order relates, or any other loss or damage sustained by a person interested in that land, regard shall be had to the foregoing provisions of this section and to anything done by the Board thereunder.
(5) Where compensation is payable under the said Part II in consequence of any such order as aforesaid, or where land is compulsorily acquired as mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (2) or subsection (3) of this section, then, if any sums have been paid to the Central Land Board by way of development charge in accordance with the determination referred to in those subsections, the Board shall pay to the authority or person by whom compensation is payable in consequence of the order or, as the case may be, in respect of the compulsory acquisition, a contribution towards that compensation representing such proportion of the sums so paid by way of development charge as may be agreed between the Board and that authority or person, or, failing agreement, as may be determined by the Secretary of State, to be appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.
(6) Subsection (3) of section nineteen of this Act shall apply for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that section, and shall accordingly have effect as if the reference therein to the foregoing provisions of that section included a reference to the foregoing provisions of this section; and any reference in this section to the compulsory

acquisition of land shall be construed as including a reference to the acquisition of land by agreement by any authority or person who has power or can be authorised to acquire it compulsorily.
This is largely a drafting Amendment but it does mean one or two changes of substance. The most important of these changes are: first, the powers conferred on the Central Land Board to vary the amount of the charges and to discharge or modify security deeds given therefor in cases where planning permission is revoked or modified, are extended to cover any such cases where land is compulsorily acquired; second, the Amendment provides that where a development charge has been paid and planning permission is subsequently revoked or modified, if the land is compulsorily acquired the Central Land Board shall pay to the local authority compensation for the revocation of the planning permission as a contribution or such amount as may be agreed with the local authority; and failing agreement the amount of the contribution will be determined by the Secretary of State. This allows for the appeal against the decision of the local authority to the Secretary of State. This, I suggest, largely meets the point raised by hon. Members in Committee that some more definite obligation should be placed on the Central Land Board to make a proper contribution to local planning authorities.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 68.—(Powers of Central Land Board as to development carried out in contravention of Part V.)

Mr. Westwood: I beg to move, in page 77, line 16, to leave out "twenty-one," and to insert "twenty-eight."
This Amendment is consequential on the acceptance in Committee of the Amendments which similarly extended the period within which objections, and so on, can be made.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 70.—(Existing development contravening previous planning control.)

Mr. Westwood: I beg to move, in page 78, line 30, to leave out "date" and insert "day."
This is purely a drafting Amendment to correct a printer's error.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 73.—(Unfinished buildings.)

Mr. Westwood: I beg to move in page 83, line 31, to leave out from beginning to "in" in line 32, and insert:
immediately before that day those works could have been completed.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Westwood: I beg to move in page 83, line 32, at end to insert: "or of permission granted there under."
This should be read with the following Amendments to pages 34, 39 and 41.
Their object is to make it clear that unfinished buildings must be buildings which, immediately before the appointed day, could have been completed either in conformity with the planning scheme or with permission granted there under, or in accordance with the interim development permission and with any permission necessary under the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act; in short, with all the necessary permissions in force immediately before the appointed day.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 83, line 34, after "order," insert:
and if any permission required under the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, for the carrying out of those works was granted.

In line 39, after "thereto," insert "by or."

In line 41, after "be," insert:
and to any conditions imposed by the permission granted under the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935.

CLAUSE 74.—(Compensation for abortive expenditure on refusal of planning permission for other development authorised before appointed day.)

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I beg to move, in page 84, line 36, to leave out from "has," to end of line 42, and to insert:
otherwise sustained loss or damage which is directly attributable to the refusal or conditions,
that authority shall pay to the applicant compensation equal to that expenditure, loss or damage.
The Government have accepted what seems to us to be an identical Amendment on Clause 19, line 44, on page 21. It does not seem at all clear to us why they should accept a similar Amend-

ment in the case of Clause 19, but apparently they have not accepted this Amendment which we now propose. The only difference between Clause 19 and Clause 74 is that Clause 19 applies after the appointed day and the Clause we are now considering applies before the appointed day. In order to get an explanation of this apparently inconsistent procedure, I move this Amendment.

Sir W. Darling: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Westwood: It is true that the position in Clause 19 is different from that in Clause 74. Clause 19 deals with the revocation and modification of planning conditions after the Bill becomes law, whereas Clause 74 deals with uncompleted developments begun under the existing law. Clause 74 continues the existing law in relation to those developments for a further period of six months under the existing law where permission is granted, or a planning scheme is revoked or modified by a subsequent scheme and the developer gets, broadly speaking, compensation in respect of expenditure incurred in carrying out work which is rendered abortive in respect of any liability for the abandonment of a contract of work; and similarly, where planning permission is granted under an interim development order prior to the nth November, 1943, and that as the date of the Town and Country Planning Interim Development (Scotland) Act, 1943, is revoked, the existing law allows compensation on the same basis as Clause 74.
12.30 a.m.
I suggest that there is no justification for having compensation on a wider basis. Where a building was erected or begun when no planning control was in operation the owner should have applied under the Town and Country Planning (Interim Development) (Scotland) Act, 1943, for permission for the completion of development. If he was refused permission under that Act, compensation would have been payable on precisely the same basis as under Clause 74. On the other hand, if the developer failed to apply for permission after the Act of 1943 was passed, but continued to complete his building and incur expense, as in the ordering of plant or machinery, it would clearly be unreasonable to expect the local planning authority to compensate him, as the loss


would have been due to the neglect of the developer. In these circumstances, I suggest that the Amendment is unjustified and could not possibly be accepted.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 75.—(Land ripe for development before the appointed day.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 85, line 29, to leave out from "satisfied," to end of line 31, in to insert:
on application made to him within one year after the appointed day or within such extended period as the Secretary of State may in any particular case allow.
This is the first of four Amendments to Clause 75 which it might be convenient to take together. The others are to lines 33, 34 and 43 on page 85. The object of the Clause, broadly speaking, is to take out of the compensation and betterment provisions of the Bill, land which is dead ripe for development on the appointed day. This would probably commend itself to hon. Gentlemen opposite. At present Clause 75 provides that the Secretary of State may direct that Parts IV and V of the Bill shall not apply. As a matter of machinery the Secretary of State issues a certificate to the effect that he is satisfied that the land specified in the certificate comes within the Clause. The owner can then produce this to the Board or purchasing authority. The issue of the certificate under the Clause follows automatically, so that this Amendment is just an improvement in machinery and does not involve any change in principle.
The second point is that before issuing a certificate, the Secretary of State should review the planning position and, if necessary, see that the planning permission is revoked. This may occasionally be necessary, particularly as the Clause applies to land subject to interim development permission granted since July, 1943. While the Bill proceeds on the assumption that such permission would have been based on modern planning requirements and can safely be preserved, this may not be so in all cases; for example, where permission was given before the new plan was made to erect houses. Where the Secretary of State issues a cerficate, as I have already described, under this alternative machine, no development charge will be payable to an owner in respect of the proposed development, that

is, development of land dead ripe. In this respect the Amendment to line 43 makes no change. There is, however, a slight change in the position as regards Part IV. Subsection (1) as drafted completely withdraws the right to claim on the £300,000,000. The Amendment provides that the point may be made in respect of any development value over and above the value for the proposed development. This brings the Clause into line with Clause 73. It is really a complicated matter, but I do not think Members opposite need be very apprehensive about the results.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I think the Government are to be congratulated in this case on their ingenuity. The House will be aware that during the discussions upstairs Members on their own side raised a very strong attack against the whole principle of this Clause. We, on the other hand, demonstrated that if you accept the principle of the Clause the Clause did not go really far enough. It was full of logical absurdities. What the Government have done is to save face by not giving way to their back benchers, but, in effect, by opening the door to nullifying the whole effect of this Clause if they want. Let me explain. All claims must be made within a year. No reason was given for that at all. The only reason that appears on the face of it is to give the Government plenty of time to operate the procedure under the fourth Amendment for the revocation of permission. No limitation is placed on that. The Secretary of State could revoke every permission if he wanted to.
If the Secretary of State is pressed sufficiently by supporters to avoid payment, he has only to step up the rate at which he revokes permissions to take instances out of the dead ripe category and put them back into the main pool which shares the £300,000,000. How far he will go in this direction nobody can say. He could not say himself possibly at the moment. But if it is admitted in principle that there is such a thing as dead ripe land, surely those who have qualified already for that category by having permission ought to get the benefit. I cannot understand how it comes about that permission can be revoked at this time of day and the vested right to compensation be taken away. The House will remember that there must not only be building permission, but there must be either


a building contract or an application for permission to build.
To come forward now and say that people who have made all their arrangements and have established that they are preparing, as soon as the shortages of labour and material allow, to carry out their development, are to be refused compensation on the basis of dead ripe land merely because the Secretary of State chooses for no reason stated to revoke the permission granted, maybe months or years ago, is introducing into our legislation for compensation an uncertainty, a dependency on the whim of the Minister for the time being, which I think is unique. It goes even beyond the suggestion of an earlier Amendment where the Treasury were to be left to make rules of any kind they chose. Here we have not even rules. The Secretary of State may deal with each individual case as he likes. He can revoke permission or not, and there is no rule, no remedy, no reason, just "go as you please." If that is the way to administer compensation, it is novel to me, and I am surprised that even this Government should reduce the award on compensation to an unprincipled morass such as will be created by the acceptance of this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 85, line 33, after "as," insert "required to be."

In line 34, leave out "the said Part IV were," and insert:
Part IV of this Act and without regard to the provisions of this section would be."—[Mr. Buchanan.]

Amendment proposed, in page 85, line 43, leave out from beginning, to end of line 5, page 86, and insert:
he shall certify accordingly:
Provided that if it appears to the Secretary of State that proceedings should be taken with a view to the revocation of the permission granted or deemed to be granted as aforesaid, he may postpone the issue of a certificate pending the taking of such proceedings, and if the permission is revoked he shall not be required to issue the certificate.
(2) Where a certificate is issued under this section, then—

(a) in calculating for the purpose of Part IV of this Act the development value of any interest in the land to which the certificate relates, no account shall be taken of any value attributable to the prospects of the development specified in the certificate; and
(b) no development charge shall be payable under Part V of this Act in respect of that development if carried out within such period, if any, as may be prescribed by the certificate."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill.

The House divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 42.

Division No. 304]
AYES.
[12.42 a.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Deer, G
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Attewell, H. C.
Diamond, J.
Keenan, W.


Awbery, S. S
Driberg, T. E. N.
Kenyon, C.


Baird, J.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Leonard, W


Barton, C.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Mack, J. D.


Blackburn, A. R.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mathers, G.


Blenkinsop, A.
Ewart, R
Mellish, R. J.


Blyton, W. R.
Fairhurst, F.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Field Capt W. [...]
Monslow, W.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington, E.)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Moyle, A.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Ganley, Mrs C S
Nally, W.


Brook, D (Halifax)
Gilzean, A
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Bruce, Major D. W. T.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Buchanan, G.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Orbach, M.


Burden, T. W
Greenwood, A W J (Heywood)
Palmer, A. M. F


Burke, W. A.
Hale, Leslie
Pargiter, G. A.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Champion, A. J.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Peart, Thomas F


Cocks, F. S.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)


Collindridge, F.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Popplewell, E


Collins, V J
Herbison, Miss M
Porter, E (Warrington)


Corbet, Mrs F. K (Camb'well, N.W.)
Holman, P
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Corlett, Dr. J.
House, G
Pritt, D. N.


Crawley, A
Hoy, J.
Proctor, W T


Grossman, R. H. S.
Hubbard, I
Randall, H E




Ranger, J.
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Walkden, E.


Rankin, J
Snow, Capt. J. W.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Rees-Williams, [...]
Sorensen, R. W
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J


Ridealgh, Mrs. M
Sparks, J A
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Robens, A.
Steele, T.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Stubbs, A. E.
Wilkins, W A.


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Symonds, A. L
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Royle, C.
Taylor, H. B (Mansfield)
Williams, J. (Kelvingrove)


Scollan, T
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Segal, Dr. S.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Willis, E.


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wills, Mrs. E A.


Sharp, Granville
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Yates, V. F.


Shurmer, P.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.



Simmons, C. J
Usborne, Henry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Skeffington, A. M.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Daines.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Gage, C.
Mellor, Sir J.


Baldwin, A. E.
Galbraith, Cmdr T. D.
Neven-Spence, Sir B


Beamish, Maj. T. V H
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Prescott, Stanley


Bossom, A. C.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S C. (Hillhead)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Hope, Lord J.
Ropner, Col. L.


Clarke, Col R. S
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (F'b'rgh W.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Clifton-Brown Lt.-Col. G
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H F C
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Cuthbert, W. N.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Willoughby de Eresby Lord


Drewe, C.
Maitland, Comdr. J W.



Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Marsden, Capt. A
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Mr. Studholme and




Major Ramsay.


Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page 86, line 6, after "section," to insert ?(a)."
This Amendment and the succeeding Government Amendment bring together in one subsection the two definitions in Subsection (3) of Clause 75.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendment made.

CLAUSE 80.—(Land held for charitable purposes.)

Amendment made: In page 91, line 3, to leave out "at," and insert "on"— [Mr. Buchanan.]

CLAUSE 81 (Crown land.)

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page 93, line 11, after "to," to insert:
and shall be determined, in default of agreement, in like manner as.
Clause 81 provided that a purchase notice may not be served under Clause 16 in respect of any interest in Crown land unless an offer has previously been made to the owner dispossessed of the land by an appropriate authority as defined under Clause 81 (6). The Amendment makes it clear that one of the conditions of the offer must be that there will be arbitration on the price if agreement cannot be reached.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 82 (Agreements and arrangements relating to Crown land.)

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page 93, line 38, leave out from "has." to first "with," in line 39, and to insert "become operative."
This is consequential on Clause 8 which was added to the Bill, and which fixed the date by which the development plan becomes operative.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 83.—(Requisitioned land.)

Amendment made: In page 95, line 12, to leave out "Defence Regulations," and to insert:
regulations made under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act. 1939"—[Mr. Buchanan.]

CLAUSE 85.—(Land acquired by notice to treat served before appointed day.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 96, line 23, to leave out Subsection (3) and to insert:
and—
(c) subject as hereinafter provided, nothing in this Part of this Act shall be construed as exempting from the payment of a development charge any operations carried out on the land by the person entitled to any such interest, or any use of the land by any such person:
Provided that paragraph (c) of this subsection shall not apply to any operations or uses of land which are exempted from the payment of a development charge by virtue of


any of the provisions of section seventy-eight of this Act.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I want to ask if the right to claim on the compensation fund is preserved. I think it is under Subsection (1) but I want to be clear that the right is preserved.

Mr. Buchanan: I understand it is amply provided for and safeguarded.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 96, line 27, at end, insert:
(3) Where any interest in land is compulsorily acquired (whether before or after the appointed day) in pursuance of a notice to treat served after the passing of this Act, and the compensation payable in respect thereof falls to be calculated in accordance with any of the provisions of sections forty-seven to forty-nine of this Act, that provision shall apply, subject to any necessary modifications, for the purpose of calculating under Part IV of this Act the restricted and the unrestricted values of that interest, and any calculation of those values previously made thereunder shall be adjusted accordingly.
In line 28, leave out Subsection (4), and insert:
(4) Subject as hereinafter provided, the foregoing provisions of this section shall apply where an interest in land is acquired by agreement by any authority or person who have power or could be authorised to acquire that interest compulsorily under any enactment, as they apply where an interest in land is compulsorily acquired, and in relation to any such acquisition any reference in those provisions to the service of notice to treat shall be construed as a reference to the making of the contract, and the reference in the last foregoing subsection to compensation payable in respect of the compulsory acquisition shall be construed as a reference to the compensation which would be so payable if the land were compulsorily acquired:
Provided that—

(a) the provisions of section forty-eight of this Act shall not apply for the purpose of calculating the restricted and the unrestricted values of any interest acquired as aforesaid except in the cases provided by subsection (2) of that section; or by that section as extended by subsection (1) of section fifty of this Act; and
(b) where any interest in land is acquired as aforesaid before the appointed day in pursuance of a contract made after the passing of this Act, the contract may provide that subsections (2) and (3) of this section shall not apply."—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 86.—(Determination and questions under Part VI.)

Amendment made:

In page 96, line 43, at end, insert:
Provided that, before determining under this section any question whether any land

is land to which section eighty of this Act applies, the Secretary of State may, and shall if the Court of Session so requires, state a case for the opinion of the Court of Session on the question whether an interest in that land is held for ecclesiastical or charitable purposes"—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 88 (Other Exchequer grants to local planning authorities.)

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. WESTWOOD: In page 99, line 14, leave out "-sixty" and insert "fifty."

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I have to submit that this Amendment is out of Order on the Report stage. The purpose of the Amendment is to reduce the Government grant to local planning authorities from a maximum of 60 to a maximum of 50 per cent. The only source from which the local planning authorities can make up the balance is the local rates, and it is the established practice in this House that you cannot increase the charge on local rates on the Report stage of a Bill. It is not necessary, in order that the Amendment shall be out of Order, that it shall necessarily increase the rates, it is enough that it may increase them. This Amendment enables the Government to lower the grant, and therefore makes it possible for the amount from the rates to be increased.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps the Minister would add his observations on this point.

Mr. Buchanan: I am not the Secretary of State, and I had no idea that this was to be raised. I can only give my own opinion, and I do so on the spur of the moment, but I give it freely and honestly. My view is that it does increase the rates, that it will have that effect. May I say, however, something to offset that? It may be a point for you to consider, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. On these matters I take the view very strongly that we should safeguard the rules of the House. This Amendment certainly reduces the grant. There is no minimum in the Bill. There is a maximum. When this was fixed the idea was that there should be a maximum figure, and there should be a minimum figure for the authorities less in need. While the maximum figure was fixed in the Bill at 60, the minimum figure was then fixed at 10 by the Treasury. In subsequent negotiations the Treasury took the view that we should make it 50 and raise the minimum to 20. I do not pro-


pose to say anything further than that. Undoubtedly, if the 60 is taken by itself, then it might have an effect on local rating.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I feel that after the Minister's very frank statement this Amendment is out of Order for the reasons stated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

CLAUSE 92.—Power of local authorities and statutory undertakers to contribute towards expenses of local planning authorities, etc.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page 101, line 23, to leave out Subsections (2) and (3).
The Subsections proposed to be left out are concerned with the payment of expenses by local authorities. The cases where compulsory contributions under these Subsections would be likely to be made are those of small burghs. This might well be intolerable, and it is for that reason that we have proposed this Amendment. This matter was raised in Committee on one of the very few days when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was absent, but I said then that I had strong views on the subject and promised that I would consult with my hon. Friends. I have done so, and, after consultation, I ask that this part of the Clause might well be dropped.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 94.—(Default powers of Secretary of State.)

Amendment made: In page 104, line 5, leave "been approved or made," and insert, "become operative."—[Mr. Buchanan.]

CLAUSE 105.—(Assumptions as to planning permission.)

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page no, line 43, after "class," to insert:" specified in the Third Schedule to this Act."
This is a drafting Amendment. The provisions in the Bill will now say that planning permission will be granted for the development of any class specified in the Third Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page no, line 46, at the end, to insert:
(2) For the purposes of paragraph 2 of the said Third Schedule, the erection on land within the curtilage of any such building as is mentioned in that paragraph of an additional building to be used in connection with the original building shall be treated as the enlargement of the original building; and where on the appointed day any two or more buildings comprised in the same curtilage are used as one unit for the purposes of any institution or undertaking, the reference in the said paragraph 2 to the cubic content of the original building shall be construed as a reference to the aggregate cubic content of those buildings.
This Amendment is for the purpose of clarifying paragraph 2 of the Third Schedule.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I do not wish to detain the House, but I must say that 1 wish the Government would not use this word "curtilage." It is not good Scots law. I know that there are occasions when it was slipped in by mistake, but I hope the Government will find some word which is better English—[HON. MEMBERS: "Better Scottish."]—No, "curtilage" is a word of English law, but not, I think, good English.

Mr. Buchanan: I am always glad to learn anything about the law, and especially from the quarter from which it now comes, and my respect for the knowledge of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is such that I will try not to use the word in future.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: What does it really mean?

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 106.—(Amendments and repeals.)

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page 1ll, line 22, at the end, to insert:
other than an enactment specified in Part 1 of the Ninth Schedule to this Act.
This Amendment goes together with the succeeding Amendments in lines 24 and 36. Clause 106 at present provides that in the case of any provision in the 1945 Act, other than a provision in Part II which deals with the 1939 standard as applied by any other enactment, that provision shall continue to apply as at present notwithstanding the fact that they may have been repealed. This provision is included in the Clause because large sections of the 1945 Act are included in


the New Towns Act. Without Clause 106 it would have been necessary practically to re-write that Schedule in view of the numerous amendments made in the 1945 Act by the present Bill and the repeal of a large number of them.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page in, line 24, to leave out "any other enactment," and to insert:
the New Towns Act, 1946, but without prejudice to any amendment of the last mentioned Act effected by this Act.
This is a drafting Amendment. Notwithstanding the repeal or amendment of the 1945 Bill, the provisions of Parts I and III of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945, will remain unaltered for the purpose of the New Towns Act, 1946. The present Clause substitutes specific reference to the New Towns Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page in, line 36, at the end, to add:
(6) In accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section the Act of 1945 shall have effect on and after the appointed day as set out in the Eleventh Schedule to this Act.
I think it will be recalled by hon. Members opposite that the provisions of the 1945 Act were produced in a modified form and printed as a White Paper. For the convenience of hon. Members, it has now been decided to set out any repealed provisions of the 1945 Act as applied to the Bill in a new Schedule to the Bill. It is really for the purpose of allowing the people who have to administer this Act to know, instead of having to go searching through other Acts to which reference is made in this Measure. Therefore, I am sure that on this occasion whatever the word "curtilage" may mean in law, it is good law as regards the ordinary people who have to administer the Bill from day to day.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I think the hon. Gentleman deserves credit for the course he has taken in this respect. I shall have a few words to say about this new Schedule when we come to it, but the principle, I am sure, is good, and will be appreciated.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 109.—(Interpretation.)

Amendments made:

In page 113, line 36, leave out "comprising," and insert, "consisting of."

In line 39, leave out "whether with or without," and insert:
consisting of such land together with.

In line 40, after "being," insert:
in each case land comprised in."—[Mr Buchanan.]

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page 113, line 42, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 43, and to insert "of comprehensive development."
This Amendment arises from an Amendment which I think the whole House accepted to Clause 3, in page 43, and if consequential on that Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page 114, line 5, to leave out from "operations," to "includes," in line 8.
This Amendment excepts from planning control works affecting only the interior of the building. The words which the present Amendment omits from Clause 109 are unnecessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page 114, line 10, to leave out from "other," to the end of line 11, and to insert:
operations normally undertaken by a person carrying on business as a builder.
This Amendment is largely consequential. The words "a person carrying on business as a builder" are being inserted in order to make it clear that planning permission is not required for the many small jobs which are frequently carried out by the owners themselves—that is, small repair work, etc.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 110.—(Short title and extent.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move in page 118, line 20, at the end, to insert:
(2) This Act shall come into force on the appointed day:
Provided that—

(a) section one of this Act, and
(b) subsection (2) of section thirty-three of this Act and subsection (2) of section thirty-four of this Act and any other provisions in sections thirty-three to forty-four of this Act which relate to the acquisition of land under either of those subsections, and


(c) sections forty-five to fifty-one of this Act, so much of section eighty-five of this Act as relates to land acquired before the appointed day, subsection (2) of section one hundred and six of this Act so far as it relates to Part I of the Ninth Schedule to this Act, and Part I of the said Ninth Schedule,
shall come into force on the date of the passing of this Act.
This is to make clearer the date on-which the Bill comes into effect.

Amendment agreed to.

NEW SCHEDULE.—(Unrepealed provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945, reprinted as amended by this Act.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, "That the Schedule be read a Second time."
This is the Schedule we have already referred to. As the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are aware, a White Paper was presented to Parliament shortly after the Bill was introduced setting out the provisions of the 1945 Act which we are incorporating in the Schedule. It is now considered convenient to reproduce those provisions in the new Schedule to the Bill, and we think that this will be of great advantage to local authorities and others who have to administer the Bill.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I am in some doubt as to the proper course to pursue here. This Schedule incorporates a number of Amendments which have not yet been reached on the Eighth Schedule, and it might be convenient if I discussed them here. Then when the Eighth Schedule comes up for consideration it could perhaps pass without discussion. There are three in particular to which I think attention ought to be drawn.
1.15 a.m.
Section 21 of the Act, as reprinted in the Schedule, provides that work done on land acquired by the Central Land Board and then transferred by them to some person who is to develop, may proceed notwithstanding that it interferes with the servitudes of other people and in particular notwithstanding that it withdraws some other person's natural right of support. It does seem to me to be going a very long way, and I wonder what the justification for it is. The Central Land Board can come and buy my neighbour's

land in order to sell it to some private developer and that private developer can go and take away my right of support without my being entitled to object. Unless I misunderstand the new provision—not the one as it was in the White Paper but as it will be after tonight—there is no doubt that will be the effect. That was not the effect it had up till now. That will become the effect. Is it really intended that the Central Land Board should have power to put a private person in possession, who can then destroy his neighbour's right of support without any possibility of question other than payment of compensation? I cannot help feeling that is an unintended consequence of this Bill. There are so many loose ends knocking about as a result of the Bill that it seems to be both theoretically and practically indefensible, and I cannot understand how it ever got through.
I pass to the amended Section 22 in the Schedule, and here I take up the point which I put at an earlier stage. Section 22 (5) entitles the Minister to conduct as concurrent proceedings, the authorisation of certain developments and the acquisition of land necessary to carry it out. Again I say to the right hon. Gentleman, are the whole of these proceedings to be a pure farce? Is the whole thing to be prejudged? Is it to be judged, is it to be taken as decided, before you have gone through an investigation? Is it to be said, "Of course, we shall brush aside objectors. We are the masters now. They are only allowed to blow off steam." Is that the attitude of this provision? It is the only attitude that can justify this concurrent procedure and, therefore, I suggest that this is a bad provision.
I pass finally to Section 29, and I hope that the country will take note of what is being done in the name of planning. Under the Rural Housing Act there was an obligation to provide housing accommodation under Section 79 of the Act of 1925. Section 29 as now amended provides that that salutary provision shall not have effect in relation to an acquisition by a local planning authority under this Bill, and it goes on to provide that where possession of any building on land which has been acquired by a local planning authority, which has been acquired by the Central Land Board is required by them, then at any time, if the tenancy of the occupier has expired, the authority


may serve notice on the occupier of the building requiring him to move within 21 clays. Then the Central Land Board may pay a reasonable allowance for disturbance, but a reasonable allowance for disturbance is very different from security of tenure or the certainty of getting a new house.
The right hon. Gentleman is priding himself that he has made good provision for displaced persons being attended to. If he looks at this, I do not think he will be quite so pleased. It seems to me to be rather bad. He is doing away with perfectly clear rights of reinstatement and he is allowing the Board to dispossess the dispossessor on a mere 21 days' notice. I take it that includes a person under the Rent Restriction Act. I am not clear about that, and I would like to know, because the contractual tenancy can be determined, but a statutory tenancy cannot under the Act. I think it is very doubtful if the Rent Restriction Act is saved. J would be glad to have an answer on that point.
These are all technical matters, but I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has the answers. It is very unfortunate that these complicated matters should have been held up and only thrust on us at the Report Stage. I cannot understand why these matters were not brought before us on the Committee stage when they could have been examined at leisure and not at this time of the morning. But such are our methods of procedure in legislation that the Government cannot keep pace with their own programme. They produce a Bill which requires extensive amendment on the Committee stage, and still they forget the most important points and only bring them here on the Report stage. We are told the time of the House is very valuable and that we cannot have time for essential debates on one thing or another, yet the Government waste time by failing to produce these things at the right time and bringing them up at the last moment. How does it happen? There arc a whole string of amendments to Schedule 8 on the Order Paper. Why were they not put down sooner and why not on the Committee stage? I do not want to take up the time of the House at this late hour, but I want to make a protest against the way in which these detailed and complicated matters are dealt with and legislation is held up and thrust on us at the last minute. It seems to me that

the purchasers from the Central Land Board are being given wholly improper powers over their neighbours That the acquisition of land is necessary to do it is a confession by the Government that their boasted safeguards amount to saying: let us get on with the purchase of land before we know whether the order is going to be made. I would not like to ask the House to divide on this, but I do want to register my protest.

Mr. Speaker: Before putting the Question, may I say that, while I appreciate that this new Schedule is put down for the convenience of Members, it is unfortunate that it includes Amendments which cannot be dealt with adequately. My taking it in this way must not be taken as a precedent for future occasions. I mention it because the right hon. Gentleman has indicated we are going to deal with them now, but I trust this procedure will be altered in future.

The Lord Advocate: This is the sort of thing that happens when we try to be accommodating. We were invited to produce this Schedule, and when we produce it, it seems to give rise to a considerable amount of criticism. May I say quite generally what this Bill tried to do with the 1945 Act. It incorporated, subject to modifications, the provisions of Sections 18 to 29. These Sections lay down a code dealing with the disposal or appropriation of land acquired under the 1945 Act by local planning authorities for planning purposes. They contain other powers to enable development to proceed; for example, they provide for the setting aside of restrictive conditions affecting land, the stopping of highways and the extinguishment of private rights of way and rights as to apparatus of statutory undertakers, and the extension and modification of powers and duties of statutory undertakers. There is really nothing new. All that has happened is that the setting out of the provisions of the 1945 Act in this Schedule has brought to the right hon. Gentleman a number of points which he had not brought forward in committee.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: May I be allowed to correct the right hon. and learned Gentleman? Not one of the points to which I referred appeared in the Committee stage or in the Bill or in anything until we got the Order Paper now before us.

The Lord Advocate: The Amendments already contained in the Eighth Schedule


to the Bill and additional Amendments now being made are largely for the purpose of tidying and clarifying the application of these Sections of the 1945 Act. I concede to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that this also widens the scope of the application of these Sections to include, in addition to local authorities, Government Departments, the Central Land Board and statutory undertakers. So far as Section 21 is concerned, the modifications affected by the present Amendment is to limit the application of the Section to land acquired for general development and where the acquiring authorities do not themselves develop, the benefit is limited to persons deriving satisfaction from the land. The scope of Section 18 is limited to land acquired by local planning authorities under Clauses 34 and 36 of the Bill. The Amendment substitutes the words:
to obtain thereon accommodation suitable to their reasonable requirements
for the words:
to obtain accommodation thereon
and the Amendment brings the provisions of Section 18 (5) of the 1945 Act into line with Section 29 of that Act under Clause 22 (7) of the Bill as amended in Committee.

1.30 a.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I would ask for some clarification before we leave this Schedule. The amended Section 24 says:
Where a Minister and the appropriate Minister or the Central Land Board and the appropriate Minister propose to name an order under this subsection …
A little further up it refers to the:
Secretary of State and the appropriate Minister …
That seems to be reasonable in a Scottish Measure, but what does it mean when it refers to the Minister and the appropriate Minister doing certain things. I understand that the appropriate Minister in some cases might be the Minister of Transport, but what other Minister would have a right to issue an Order under this Scottish Measure? It seems to me to be an extraordinary thing.

Schedule read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that perhaps it might be more convenient if this procedure, which I think is a good one,

were adopted again, but that the Bill should be re-committed in respect of the new Schedule at the end of the Report stage. In that event we could discuss these Amendments separately. As it is, it is rather awkward to discuss them now.

Mr. Buchanan: I appreciate your remarks, Mr. Speaker, but I might say that this was a genuine effort to help all sides. We broadly agreed that this would serve the purpose, but we learn from experience and possibly the experience we have gained here will guide us when we come to consider further Scottish Measures.

Mr. Speaker: I quite agree, and I realise that this was meant to help. I appreciate the difficulty, but there might have been Amendments on which hon. Members would have wished to divide. That would have been simpler.

SECOND SCHEDULE—((Excepted Enactments for the purposes of Section 10.)

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page 122, line 31, to leave out "suspended," and to insert, "excluded or modified."
This is a drafting Amendment consequential on one which the House accepted in page 12, line 24.

Amendment agreed to.

FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Provisions relating to compensation under Part II.)

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page 123, line 37, to leave out from ?pay able," to "under," in line 38.
This Amendment and the subsequent Amendments in page 124, line 1, and page 124, line 30, deal with the same point, which is really to remedy a defect The effect of the drafting Amendment is that in certain circumstances an owner who came along and pulled down a building of his own volition would get less compensation than he would get if he had done so by the order of a local authority. These Amendments say that he shall get the same compensation as he would have got if the local authority had ordered him to do so. In other words, it lays down that a man should not be penalised for being ahead of the local authority and doing it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 124, line 1, leave out from "any," to "given," in line 2, and insert:


compensation is payable as aforesaid by virtue of any decision or order.

In line 30, leave out from "person," to "shall," in line 32, and insert:
by virtue of any order made under Section twenty-two of this Act."—[Mr. Buchanan.]

FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Special provisions relating to development by statutory undertakers.)

Amendment made:
In page 125, line 5, leave out "twenty-one," and insert "twenty-eight."—[Mr. Buchanan."]

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page 127, line 1, to leave out paragraph 5.
Paragraph 5 of this Schedule applies the provisions of Section 26 of the 1945 Act. This provides relief to statutory undertakers from obligations rendered impracticable by the compulsory purchase of their land—whose obligations are rendered impracticable by the reasonable application of planning control provisions in Part II of the Bill. Now it is decided to recast the whole of this provision.

Amendment agreed to.

SIXTH SCHEDULE.—(Procedure for making orders under Section 44.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 128, line 33, at the end, to insert:
Provided that where any such order is subject to special Parliamentary procedure, then—

(a) if the order is confirmed by Act of Parliament under Subsection (4) of Section two, as read with Section ten, of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, or under Section six of that Act, Subsections (2) and (3) of the said Section eight shall not apply;
(b) in any other case the said Subsections shall have effect as if in Subsection (2) for the reference to the date on which the notice required by the last foregoing paragraph is first published there were substituted a reference to the date on which the order becomes operative under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, and as if in Subsection (3) the words from 'and shall become operative,' to the end of the Subsection were omitted."
This is a similar point to that covered in the earlier Amendment, putting a right of challenge in a court of session where the procedure has been gone through under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act.

Amendment agreed to.

SEVENTH SCHEDULE.—(Modifications of Part II of Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 128, line 47, after "under," to insert: "paragraph (b) of Subsection (2) of."
This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Westwood: I beg to move, in page 129, line 24, after "shall," to insert:
on a claim made to the Commission in that behalf within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations made by the Treasury under this Act.
As it stands, the Schedule provides for payment being paid by the War Damage Commission to the Minister or the authority compulsorily acquiring certain war damaged property. The object of the Amendment I am now moving is to make payment on a claim being made to the Commission within the time and in a manner prescribed by regulations made by the Treasury.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 130, line 24, to leave out from "construed," to the end of line 26, and to insert:
as a reference to the date of the completion of the acquisition or, if interest on the compensation, or on the purchase price, as the case may be, becomes payable before that date (whether by virtue of entry on the land or otherwise), as a reference to the date from which the interest becomes payable.

This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 131, line 19, at the end, to insert:

"Extension of Owner-occupier Supplement to Certain Subsidiary Companies.

4.—(1) Where an interest in land the value of which falls to be ascertained in accordance with the provisions of Part II of the Act of 1945 for the purposes of the compensation payable on a compulsory acquisition thereof is an interest held by a company having among its objects the holding of land, and being related (as hereinafter defined) to another company which carries on business on land so held, then, without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph (a) of Subsection (6) of Section fifty-four of the said Act, or of any regulation made thereunder. Subsection (5) of that Section shall have effect in relation to that interest as if references in paragraphs (a) to (d) of that Subsection to the person entitled to compensation for the purchase of that interest included references to the last mentioned company.

(2) For the purposes of this paragraph a company shall be deemed to be related to another company if either of those companies is a subsidiary of the other (as defined by any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to companies) or if both of them are subsidiaries (as so defined) of a third company."

This is rather a complicated Amendment to effect the payments necessary to meet the case, for example, of a company carrying on business as a multiple stores and which does not directly own the premises where, it carries on the business but does so indirectly through a subsidiary company, the particular company occupying the premises held by the subsidiary under lease or licence. Accordingly, if any of the land is held by the subsidiary no owner-occupier company under Section 54 of the 1945 Act is liable. We do not think it would be fair and this Amendment puts the position right.

Amendment agreed to.

EIGHTH SCHEDULE.—(Enactments Amended.)

Amendment made: In page 131, line 24, column 2, leave out first "any,? and insert "the."—[Mr. Westwood.]

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page 131, line 26, column 2, at the end, to insert:
and for the words 'their consent in writing to the licensing authority,' there shall be substituted the words 'the licensing authority, that any planning permission required as aforesaid has been so granted or is deemed to be so granted.'
Under Section 9 of the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934, a licence is required for racing tracks for the duration of seven years. Under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act licences shall not be granted unless the planning authorities have consented to the establishment or continuation of the track. The effect of this Amendment and the subsequent one is to make the grant of a licence under Section 7 of the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934, conditional on planning permission having been given for that period of the duration of the licence.

Mr. Speaker: All the Amendments put down by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State to Schedule Eight have been covered in the Schedules we have already passed and I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House

if I were to put the whole of the Amendments to Schedule Eight en bloc.

Mr. Buchanan: I was rather in fear of doing that myself because I might be accused of doing something smart.

Mr. Speaker: The blame if any is mine.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 131, line 36, after "area" Insert:
after paragraph (4) there shall be inserted the following paragraph: —
(4A) In section seven, in subsection (1) for the words from "satisfied that" in the second place where those words occur to "or shall grant," there shall be substituted the words "satisfied that any planning permission required under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947 for the establishment of the track, or for the continuance of the track during the period for which the licence would be in force, has been granted thereunder or is deemed to be so granted, or shall grant"?.?

In page 134, line 5, column 2, after "one," insert "in section two."

In line 8, column 2, leave cut from eighteen, "to end of line 12 and insert:
in subsection (1) for the words from 01 appropriated,' to the end of subsection there shall be substituted the words 'under section thirty-four or section thirty-six of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1947, or appropriated for purposes for which land can be acquired under those sections, and is for the time being held by the authority for the purposes for which it was acquired, or appropriated'; in subsection (3) for the words 'this Part of this Act' there shall be substituted the words 'Part III of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947'; in subsection (5) after the word 'shall' there shall be inserted the words 'in the case of land comprised in an area defined by a development plan as an area of comprehensive development'; for the words 'land which the authority have acquired for the purposes of this Part of this Act' there shall be substituted the words 'any such land which the authority have acquired as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section'; and for the words accommodation thereon' there shall be substituted the words 'thereon accommodation suitable to their reasonable requirements.'

In line 17, column 2, at end, insert:
and in subsection (10) for the words from 'land which' to 'this Part of this Act' where those words first occur there shall be substituted the words 'any such land as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section'; for the words 'this Part of this Act in the second place where those words occur there shall be substituted' Part III of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1047.'

In line 18, column 2, leave out from "nineteen," to "and," in line 22, and insert:
in subsection (1) for the words from 'land which,' to ?purposes of this Part of this Act,' there shall be substituted the words 'any such land as is mentioned in subsection (1) of section eighteen of this Act'; and for the words 'this Part of this Act,' in the second and third places where those words occur, there shall be substituted the words 'Part III of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947.'

In line 27, column 2, leave out from "subsection (1)," to end of line 38, and insert:
for the words from 'or a local highway,' to 'authorised by this Part of this Act,' there shall be substituted the words' as mentioned in subsection (1) of section eighteen of this Act or which has been acquired by the Central Land Board under section thirty-nine of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, whether done by the local planning authority or by any reason deriving title from the local planning authority or from the Board, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be authorised by this section.'

In line 43, column 2, leave out from beginning, to "in," in line 46, and insert:
for the words 'other than the local planning or highway authority,' there shall be substituted the words 'deriving title from the local planning authority,' after the word 'appropriated' there shall be inserted the words 'or from the Central Land Board,' after the word 'authority,' in the second place where that word occurs, there shall be inserted the words 'or against the Board, as the case may be,' and after the word 'authority,' in the third and fourth places where that word occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or Board.'

In line 53, column 2, at end, insert:
and in subsection (4) the words 'or local highway authority' shall be omitted.

In page 135, line 2, column 2, leave out from "subsection (1)," to "is" in line 10, and insert:
for the words from 'land which has' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words 'any such land as is mentioned in subsection (1) of section eighteen of this Act if he.'

In line 16, column 2, leave out from"(2),"to first "the" in line 18.

In line 20, column 2, after "1947," insert:
shall apply to an order under this section as it applies to an order under section forty-four of that Act.

In line 21, column 2, leave out "any such order," and insert "an order under this section."

In page 136, line 2, column 2, after "omitted," insert:

and for the words 'subsection (2) of this section' there shall be substituted the words 'paragraph 1 of the Sixth Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act. 1947.'

In line 5, column 2, leave out from "(5)," to end of line 18 and insert:
Regulations made under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, may provide for securing that any proceedings required to be taken for the purposes of an order under this section may be taken concurrently with any proceedings required to be taken for the purposes of the acquisition of the land over which the right of way is to be extinguished, or for securing that any proceedings required to be taken for the purpose of the acquisition of any other land under subsection (3) of this section may be taken concurrently with either or both of the said proceedings.

In line 28, column 2, leave out from beginning, to "and," in line 40, and insert:
for the words from 'or appropriated' to 'acquired the land' there shall be substituted the words 'by a purchasing authority under Part III of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, or which has been appropriated by a local planning authority as mentioned in subsection (1) of section eighteen of this Act.

In line 43, column 2, leave out "authority, Board or Minister," and insert "purchasing or appropriating authority."

In line 47, column 2, leave out "authority, Board or Minister," and insert "purchasing or appropriating authority."

In line 50, column 2, after "omitted," insert:
for the words 'the authority' there shall be substituted the words 'or on statutory undertakers, the authority or undertakers, and after 'undertaking' there shall be inserted the words 'on whom the notice was served under subsection (1) of this section.?

In page 137, line 9, column 2, leave out from "(8)" to "and," in line 11, and insert:
for the words 'authority or Minister' there shall be substituted the words 'purchasing or appropriating authority.'

In line 30, column 2, leave out "operational," and insert "any such."

In line 34, column 2, leave out "operational," and insert "any such."

In line 43, column 2, after "(1)." insert:
after the word 'that,' in the second place, where that word occurs insert '(a).??

In line 47, column 2, after "and," insert:


for the words 'or the extinguishment there under,' there shall be substituted the words: —
(b) a decision on an application under Part II of the said Act by a person carrying on the undertaking for permission to develop any such land or the revocation or modification of planning permission granted on such an application or the making of an order under section twenty-two of that Act in relation to any such lands; or
(c) the extinguishment under Part 111 of that Act;'
and.

In line 47, leave out from ?and," to end of line 4, on page 138, and insert:
for subsection (5) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
(5) In relation to an order made under this section, subsections (1) to (4) of section eight of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, shall apply, subject to any necessary modifications, as they apply in relation to a development plan approved by the Secretary of State under that Act, and accordingly the said subsection (1) shall have effect as if for the reference therein to the local planning authority there were substituted a reference to the appropriate Minister:
Provided that where any such order is subject to special parliamentary procedure, then—

(a) if the order is confirmed by Act of Parliament under subsection (4) of section two, as read with section ten of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, or under section six of that Act, subsections (2) and (3) of the said section eight shall not apply;
(b) in any other case those subsections shall have effect in relation to the order as if in subsection (2) for the reference to the date on which the notice required by subsection (1) of the said section eight is first published, there were substituted a reference to the date on which the order becomes operative under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, and as if in subsection (3) the words from 'and shall become operative' to the end of the subsection were omitted.

In page 138, line 5, column 2, leave out from "twenty-seven," to "in." in line 19, and insert:
in subsection (1) for the words from 'or appropriated, 'to' Minister thereunder,' there shall be substituted the words 'by a purchasing authority, under Part III of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, or which has been appropriated by a local planning authority as mentioned in subsection (1) of section eighteen of this Act,' and for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—
(a) in the case of land acquired by a purchasing authority other than a Minister, or of land appropriated by a local planning authority as aforesaid by that authority or

by any other person, if that use conforms with planning control.'"

In line 22, column 2, at end, insert:
and in subsection (5) the words 'or local highway authority' shall be omitted.

In line 23, column 2, leave out from twenty-eight," to "in," in line 37, and insert:
in subsection (1) for the words from ?or appropriated' to the words 'Minister there under' there shall be substituted the words 'by a purchasing authority under Part III of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, or which has been appropriated by a local planning authority as mentioned in subsection (1) of section eighteen of this Act and for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted the following paragraph: —
(a) in the case of land acquired by a purchasing authority other than a Minister or of land appropriated by a local planning authority as aforesaid by that authority or by any other person, if that use conforms with planning control.'

In line 43, column 2, at end, insert:
and in subsection (3) the words or local highway authority.? "shall be omitted.

In line 44, column 2, leave out from "twenty-nine," to "after," in line 51, and insert:
in subsection (1) for the words from land acquired,? to ?this Part of this Act,? there shall be substituted the words ?any such land as is mentioned in subsection (1) of section eighteen of this Act,? and.

In page 139, line 4, column 2, leave out from persons, "to" and, "in line 8 and insert:
in subsection (2) for the words ?under this part of this Act' there shall be substituted the words ?by a local planning authority under section thirty-four of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947; in subsection (3) for the words from ?or a local high way,' to this Part of this Act there shall be substituted the words ?as is mentioned in subsection (1) of section eighteen of this Act?; in subsection (4) for the words from ?which has been acquired by? to ?Minister there under,? there shall be substituted the words on land which has been acquired or appropriated by a local planning authority as mentioned in subsection (1) of section eighteen of this Act or which has been acquired by the Central Land Board or a Minister under Part III of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947.

In line 11, column 2, after ?(5)," insert:
the words 'or a local highway authority,? shall be omitted.

In line 14, column 2, leave out from "and," to end of line 16, and insert:
for the words from ?or appropriated,? to ?this Part of this Act,? there shall be substituted the words 'by the local planning auth-


rity, Board or Minister under Part III of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, or which has been appropriated by the local planning authority as mentioned in Subsection (1) of Section eighteen of this Act.'

In page 140, line 19, column 2, leave out from "authority," to end of line 20, and insert:
means a Minister, the Central Land Board, a local planning authority or any statutory undertakers.

In line 36, column 2, at end, insert:
and after Subsection (3) there shall be added the following Subsection—
(4) Any reference in this Act to the Town and Country (Scotland) Act, 1947, Or to Part III of that Act shall be construed as including a reference to any provision of this Act incorporated with the said Part III.'

In line 36, column 2, at end, insert:
In the First Schedule, in sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 1 for the word 'thereof' there shall be substituted the words or this Act.'

In page 141, line 18, column 2, leave out from "of," to end of line 19, and insert:
any such compulsory purchase as is mentioned in Subsection (5).

In line 26, column 2, at end, insert:
and in sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 3 for the words 'authority or Minister' there shall be substituted the word 'person.'

In line 44, at end, insert:

9 amp; 10 Geo. 6. c. 70
The Civil Aviation Act, 1946.
In section fifty-two in paragraph (e) for the words from ?for the reference? to '1945? there shall be substituted the words for the words from the beginning of the subsection to "effect" there shall be substituted the words "section twenty-seven of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945 (which relates to consecrated land and burial grounds) shall, as amended by the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, have effect "and for the words "Part I of that Act" there shall be substituted the words "Part III of the last mentioned Act".'"

—[Mr. Buchanan.]

NINTH SCHEDULE.—(Enactments Repealed.)

Commander Galbraith: Might I make a suggestion, Mr. Speaker? Could we not adopt similar procedure to that in connection with the Eighth Schedule? We have certainly no objection to any of the Amendments to this Schedule.

Mr. Buchanan: I support what the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) has said, and I appreciate his suggestion. All the Amendments are either drafting Amendments or are to clarify Amendments we have

In line 31, column 2, leave out from "plan," to "the," and insert "under."

In page 142, line 10, column 2, leave out from beginning, to "Second," in line 12, and insert:
after the word 'modified,' there shall be inserted the words 'by the.'

In line 19, column 2, leave out from "1946," to "in," in line 22.

In page 144, line 44, column 2, at end, insert:
In the Fifth Schedule, at the end of the modification of Section twenty-one of the said Act there shall be added the words ?and in Subsection (3), for the words ?the terms of an interim development order' to the end of the Subsection there shall be substituted the words 'planning permission granted under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947'; and in the modification of Section sixty-two of the said Act for the words 'and "loan charges" shall not apply? there shall be substituted the words '"interim development application,? "interim development authority, "loan charges," and "planning scheme," shall not apply,' and for the definition of "local planning authority" there shall be substituted the following definition" 'local planning authority' means the local planning authority for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947?

already made in the earlier parts of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: If the House agrees, I will put the Amendments to the Ninth and Tenth Schedules together.

Amendments made:

In page 145, line 10, column 3, at end, insert:
in section twenty-five, in paragraph (b), of subsection (2), the words from 'including,' to the end of the paragraph.

In line 12, column 3, after "fifty-eight," insert:


in section sixty-one, the words ?except in so far as is otherwise provided by this Act?; in the Sixth Schedule, in sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 1, the words ?(and as amended by Part II of this Act).'

In page 148, line 16, column 3, leave out "and," and insert:
Valuation Office.'

In line 17, column 3, after" 'roll," insert:
and ?war damage.'

In line 19, column 3, after "and," insert:
the word 'or,? at the end of sub-paragraph (a) and.

In line 22, column 3, leave out second "and."

In line 24, column 3, at end, insert:
and in paragraph 12 of the Sixth Schedule the words from 'and references to the confirmation,' to the end of the paragraph."—[Mr. Buchanan.]

TENTH SCHEDULE.—(Transitory provisions and provisions consequential on repeals.)

Amendments made:

In page 150, line 44, at beginning, insert: "Subject as hereinafter provided."

In line 44, leave out "planning."

In line 49, leave out from "shall," to end of line, and insert:
if in force on the appointed day, continue in force in accordance with the terms thereof and may be enforced under the said section thirty-three or under the scheme as the case may be:
Provided that—

(a) nothing in any such agreement shall be construed as restricting or requiring the exercise, in relation to land to which any such agreement applies, of any powers exerciseable by any Minister or authority under this Act:
(b) if the Secretary of State it- satisfied, on application made to him by any person being a party to any such agreement, or a person entitled to land affected thereby, that any restriction on the development or use of the land imposed by the agreement is inconsistent with the proper planning or development of the area comprising the land, he may by order discharge or modify that restriction so far as apears to him to be expedient;
(c) without prejudice to the provisions of sub-paragraph (b) of this proviso, if any person, being a party to any such agree-

ment (whether as originally made or as modified under that sub-paragraph), or a person entitled to land affected thereby, claims that the agreement ought to be modified or rescinded having regard to the provisions of this Act or anything done there under, he may refer to arbitration the question whether the agreement should be so modified or rescinded, and the arbiter may make such award as appears to him to be just having regard to all the circumstances."

In page 151, line 46, leave out from "day," to "for," in line 48, and insert:
application has been made to the Secretary of State.

In line 48, leave out "that Act," and insert:
the Act of 1945.

In page 152, leave out lines 1 to 4, and insert:
proceedings on the application shall be continued under that Act after that day; and where any such direction is given, section one of the Act of 1945 and section thirteen of that Act and the First Schedule to that Act so far as they relate to an order under the said section one shall continue to apply in relation to the application and an order may be made thereon accordingly.

In line 7, after "Act," insert:
or where any such order has been made after the appointed day by virtue of the last foregoing paragraph.

In line 9, leave out from "area," to "and," in line 11, and insert:
of comprehensive development.

In line 15, leave out from "any," to end of line, and insert "such order."

In line 21, leave out "before the appointed day."

In line 32, leave out from "effect," to "section," in line 33, and insert:
as if it had been made under Part III of this Act and.

In line 33, leave out "that Act," and insert:
the Act of 1945."—[Mr. Buchanan.]

Bill to be read the Third time this day. and to be printed. [Bill 93.]

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Collindridge.]

Adjourned accordingly at Fifteen Minutes to Two o'Clock.